|
Is it ever ok for powerful countries to intervene in the matters of global south countries? I'm almost willing to say no. It would appear that many of the problems these countries have is a consequence of intervention and even when they are not, the last person to help is someone who doesn't truly undestand the situation or the culture. What comes to mind often is the Rwandan genocide where the northern powers stayed out. But at the same time, the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups were artificial and created by European powers who at the time had really dumb ideas about race and used it to divide the natives. Would foreign intervention have made the situation better? Or could it have escalated the conflict, kicking a can down the road, opening the Rwandans up to even further exploitation? What about natural disasters? I remember a story from a few years ago where Burma, described as being ruled by a military Junta refused aid after Cyclone Nargis. The international community condemned Burma's leaders for their apparent ungratefulness. And to be fair, that storm killed a lot of people and left thousands homeless. But could Burma have had a good reason not to allow aid into their country? They very well probably were overreacting. I'm not here to apologize for them. At the same time, opening those gates in the past, in other parts of the world has led to the situation getting even worse. In Hati, after an earthquake, after a massive outpouring of support, the north pretty much forgot about it and even when there was a lot of support, the aid was not directed with as much thought or got snatched up by people with the right connections. Again, we see people helping without understanding the local cultural and political structute. One story I remember was about local merchants having problems with the aid as people who would have bough from them got food for free. (lol contradictions of capitalism) In the past, I would have been for intervention, but now I am re-examining some of my biases. I was wondering what you guys thought.
|
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 21:52 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 10:23 |
|
|
Fire posted:What comes to mind often is the Rwandan genocide where the northern powers stayed out. But at the same time, the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups were artificial and created by European powers who at the time had really dumb ideas about race and used it to divide the natives. Would foreign intervention have made the situation better? Or could it have escalated the conflict, kicking a can down the road, opening the Rwandans up to even further exploitation? There already was foreign intervention in Rwanda. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7542418.stm
|
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 21:58 |
|
|
What are your thoughts on requested intervention? Many Libyans wanted a no fly zone, as do many Syrians today.
|
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 22:00 |
|
|
Nova Bizzare posted:There already was foreign intervention in Rwanda. Right, that is why I consider even "well intentioned" intervention to be highly suspect and probably not a good idea.
|
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 22:14 |
|
|
Hoo boy. Intervention really depends on intent of the intervening party and it's success would depend on the level of cooperation and the existence of shared interests between the parties involved. Now I'm in staunch opposition to the current brand of western intervention (Which, disgustingly, is oft-called humanitarian intervention) considering it's very, very bad track record. Not to mention the propensity for the intervention to just be a political ploy to gain more support and control over internal politics, or to place favorable people in the shambles left behind by particularly messy interventions. They tend to barge in without giving thought to the current situation, the social causes and the outcomes, the overwhelming cost and the all too common result that the intervention breeds much bad will within the populace of the country. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at Jan 20, 2013 around 22:29 |
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 22:27 |
|
|
This was linked some time ago on one of the LF incarnations (I forget which with so many being shut down). I don't necessarily agree with the authors article, there are some comments I do though:quote:Imperialism is a pertinent contradiction affecting the development of dominated social formations. The concept of domination will allow us to give a materialist interpretation of imperialism and all its negative consequences. For example, the question of migration can’t be understood outside the theory of imperialism. Another example: imperialist domination generates a series of contradictions in the development of the productive forces as well as in the transformation of class structures inside social formations, and create conditions for parasitical classes to be historically constituted and for opportunism to take hold among the working class (especially inside the imperialist social formations, by constructing a working class aristocracy).
|
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 22:37 |
|
|
I thought the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was justified and I wish it had occurred much sooner. The British inadvertently intervening in Sierra Leone more than they meant to saved quite a lot of lives and they were in and out in like a week. The Yugoslav wars were really rough and ambiguous throughout with no pure victim, but after having visited Kosovo I have to say the NATO intervention produced a better result than if nothing had been done. There are really no more than a handful of countries Africa where a good case can't be made that their government lacks legitimacy and under very specific circumstances intervention could be a net positive. Now, in terms of actual history it's been almost 100% negative and usually the West intervenes only to make things worse... but in terms of pure politics and logistics there are all sorts of things that would make sense to do. Aids drugs and family planning stuff are paid for almost entirely by the west and for something like that anything that lowers the infection rate is a godsend, even if it somehow hurts the dignity and political autonomy of the domestic government. I always end up hearing shrieks of protest from people who think leftism is identical to anti-interventionism/anti-americanism, which is far too inflexible and dogmatic. I like Chomsky a lot but he was completely wrong on Cambodia and also ended up taking an automatic anti-american stance on Yugoslavia that saw him side with greater-serbian imperialism and a gang of nationalist crooks and murders.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 01:40 |
|
|
Theoretically yes, in practice we gently caress it up a lot so its mostly all bad and should be opposed. In your example of Rawanda, If the US had gone in guns blazing and stopped it, a bunch of people would have died, compared to the horrific body count the genocide caused. We also would have hosed up the government and probably set up some kind of oppressive system there, but it's not like the current inhabitants are doing great either. In short if it stops horrendous crimes from being committed, I guess it is is the lesser of two evils. A bunch of stuff will get screwed up, but if the alternative is just as destructive, I'll take the one that stops a genocide or murderous regime like Gaddafi. I guess the central issue is how much of Imperialism's past crimes should be treated as sunk costs? It happened, (meaning the more literal sense of it, a la France in Africa or Spain the Caribbean and Mexico)no one alive caused it, and we are still dealing with the ramifications.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 04:15 |
|
|
Smerdyakov posted:The Yugoslav wars were really rough and ambiguous throughout with no pure victim, but after having visited Kosovo I have to say the NATO intervention produced a better result than if nothing had been done. Remember to split the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia from the actual Bosnian War, which was not only started a decade earlier, but has nothing to do with Kosovo (or the bombing of Serbia in 1999 by NATO, which is inevitably going to be brought up, all in the same breath). I don't know about imperialist intervention, but I haven't ruled out yet for myself that all intervention is unnacceptable. Do we follow Gore Vidal in labeling US intervention in WWII as unacceptable? I mean you could make the argument that, that was the moment where global political power solidified into the hands of the United States and drained from its previous owners, the British empire, etc. Then there's the issue of the Bosnian War, where intervention stopped genocide by any other name. My default position is still anti-imperialist in all cases, as I recognize that intervention more often than not creates the future conditions for renewed intervention. That doesn't mean that the most moral position is always to sit on your hands. Much like the concept of human rights, the 'responsibility to protect' is more often than not the imperialist's tool to legally circumvent the sovereignity of an ideological enemy. That doesn't mean that in the realpolitik sense, some interventions have never born any material benefits that might justify them. The Bosnian War seems like one of those examples, but maybe I'm just biased.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 11:00 |
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Remember to split the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia from the actual Bosnian War, which was not only started a decade earlier, but has nothing to do with Kosovo (or the bombing of Serbia in 1999 by NATO, which is inevitably going to be brought up, all in the same breath). The US didn't intervene in WWII, we had war declared on us.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 13:32 |
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:The US didn't intervene in WWII, we had war declared on us. Well you could make the case that the intervention occurred beforehand with lend-lease and whatnot.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 13:35 |
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well you could make the case that the intervention occurred beforehand with lend-lease and whatnot. Roosevelt knew that war was coming (at least with japan) which is why he started those programs in the first place. Now here's a question for the socialists in this thread, would it be ok if the 'allies' overtly intervened on the republican side of the civil war like the germans did?
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 13:42 |
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:The US didn't intervene in WWII, we had war declared on us. Sure, whatever. That's why I tried to draw away from materially unilateral 'imperialist' intervention and simply talk about intervention in the general sense that exists with or without prompt.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 13:57 |
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Now here's a question for the socialists in this thread, would it be ok if the 'allies' overtly intervened on the republican side of the civil war like the germans did? Just to be clear the Germans sided with the Nationalists, not the Republicans. And the Allies would've sided with the Nationalists too. It's only hindsight that places them on the side of the Republicans. At the time the British, and to a lesser extent the Americans, were materially supporting the Nationalists. It's like asking whether the Americans would support Chavez against a coup; It's far more likely they would be on the other side.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 14:25 |
|
|
Persona non grata posted:Just to be clear the Germans sided with the Nationalists, not the Republicans. And the Allies would've sided with the Nationalists too. It's only hindsight that places them on the side of the Republicans. At the time the British, and to a lesser extent the Americans, were materially supporting the Nationalists. I know the Germans sided with the nationalists, forgot to make that clear.  However there were movements especially in France to intervene and Leon Blum himself would of probably done so had he not feared the domestic blowback so much.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 14:46 |
|
|
This thread should really have it's title changed, since it contains a leading question.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 14:56 |
|
|
"Is imperialist intervention ever justified?" sounds like a question straight out of left-wing FOX. French and British people, like a lot of Americans and Irish, saw what happened in Spain as the rightfully defense of democracy and the right of a people for a more just political system. No one on the cabinets of their states cared too much about Spain because anything to the left of conservatism was feared as bolsheviq uprisings. If i remember correctly Mexico was the only democracy to actually do something for the Republican side. If your intervention is in the name of the people and you wish to create a state more democratic and more representative of the populace's wishes then i don't see why intervention is a bad thing. Obviously when western powers, the Soviet Union or China do so it rarely is\was for the sake of the populace, but that doesn't mean all interventions are bad. Libya was justified, with any hope the new democracy will have some balls and not sell themselves to the west at the expense of the Libyans.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 15:03 |
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:The US didn't intervene in WWII, we had war declared on us. Yeah I would call WW2 as an empire versus empire situation and not really relevant to what I am talking about. Imperialism is more big guy setting up colonies or meddling in the affairs of a smaller community with military, social, and economic force behind it.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 15:12 |
|
|
Slight derail: a case could be made for the US making plenty of imperialist moves - relevant to Japan in particular - prior to WWII, starting with the Spanish American war and including the bum deal TR negotiated after the Russo-Japanese war, leaning on Britain in the naval arms race after WWI, and the subsequent naval treaty that made the US the defacto naval hegemon as Britain was forced to cut naval ties with Japan. (Of course Japan was a budding Imperialist power itself.) [edit] And I agree that the actual hostilities involved the US being attacked by another imperialist power; my point was just that it was our prior imperialist moves that had set the stage. But what I really wanted to say was the the question could be asked differently. Is there any way that a dominant global power can use its power benevolently in the global south/developing world, and if so is that politically realistic? A thing that strikes me is that "intervention" always implicitly involves the military, even for things like disaster relief. The stock retort that "well duhh aircraft carriers and the Navy are really good at moving stuff around" is a dodge; if a global power were interested in benevolent intervention, its military budget could be spent differently in the first place. emfive fucked around with this message at Jan 21, 2013 around 15:53 |
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 15:38 |
|
|
Fire posted:In the past, I would have been for intervention, but now I am re-examining some of my biases. I was wondering what you guys thought. I think that fundamentally you're grappling with the realization that nothing is perfect. You're always going to be able to critique motivations and outcomes, and there are always going to be drawbacks. And frankly this is true at every level of human endeavor, but particularly when considering something as complex and messy as foreign policy. But this does not justify inaction in the face of calamitous need. We should help the vulnerable when capable of doing so: This is true on the personal and societal levels, and it is also true on the international level.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 16:01 |
|
|
emfive posted:Slight derail: a case could be made for the US making plenty of imperialist moves - relevant to Japan in particular - prior to WWII, starting with the Spanish American war and including the bum deal TR negotiated after the Russo-Japanese war, leaning on Britain in the naval arms race after WWI, and the subsequent naval treaty that made the US the defacto naval hegemon as Britain was forced to cut naval ties with Japan. (Of course Japan was a budding Imperialist power itself.) Yeah this a better phrasing of the question since it doesn't come with the baggage the first question had. I think that the use of (U.S) aircraft carriers in disaster relief is more or less a happy accident that comes from the insane amount of logistical capabilities that both nuclear powered aircraft carriers and the U.S navy have. That and the U.S Navy itself has to find things to keep it occupied in between the end of the cold war and the rise of actual rivals that they can 'play' with.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 16:03 |
|
|
(edit: Kaal said it more concisely above) The thread's argument is framed in such a way that its conclusion is already obvious. The positive statement, "Intervention is sometimes justified," is virtually impossible to defend. Intervention only occurs in desperate cases, where the afflicted peoples are already suffering and dying in great numbers, and the government is either collapsed or part of the problem. Since militaristic intervention (the principal kind being discussed here) is a tool of last resort, there is never an unambiguously "good outcome" from intervention. The real world is far messier than that. Any flaw in the outcome is used to declare the whole intervention unjustified: Fire, in the OP, declared the relief efforts in Haiti to be unjustified because aid was poorly distributed, mostly short-term, and harmful to economic recovery. The counterfactual- "what if we just left starving Haitians to die"- is never considered. People who want to argue in the affirmative have no way of meeting the impossibly high standard of proof placed upon them. To make matters worse, if any case DOES exist where intervention quickly and quietly brought about an end to the crisis with no negative long-term effects, it would probably have not made front-page headlines and it would have been forgotten about by all but specialists in a few years. In other words, not only is the burden of proof excessively high, but the very cases that might meet that burden are those which we're least likely to have heard about. A much more interesting topic for a thread would be something along the lines of: "Does the international community have a duty to intervene in humanitarian crises?"
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 16:26 |
|
|
Another factor that makes the topic problematic is the fact that the developing world has already been systematically victimized by centuries of imperialism. What sort of form would benevolent intervention have to take in a place like Haiti, where local power is corrupt and inequitable? Cooperate with the local government, or essentially hold aid hostage to changes? That's a pretty tough problem even without considering the interests of the "benevolent" imperialist power.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 16:40 |
|
|
emfive posted:Another factor that makes the topic problematic is the fact that the developing world has already been systematically victimized by centuries of imperialism. What sort of form would benevolent intervention have to take in a place like Haiti, where local power is corrupt and inequitable? Cooperate with the local government, or essentially hold aid hostage to changes? That's a pretty tough problem even without considering the interests of the "benevolent" imperialist power.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 16:54 |
|
|
Kaal posted:I think that fundamentally you're grappling with the realization that nothing is perfect. You're always going to be able to critique motivations and outcomes, and there are always going to be drawbacks. And frankly this is true at every level of human endeavor, but particularly when considering something as complex and messy as foreign policy. But this does not justify inaction in the face of calamitous need. We should help the vulnerable when capable of doing so: This is true on the personal and societal levels, and it is also true on the international level. Am I incorrect in assuming that the fallacy that this thread's central premise is based on is that doing nothing is inherently morally neutral (thus making it preferable to any action that could cause harm)? Because that's what I'm getting out of Fire.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 17:00 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:People who want to argue in the affirmative have no way of meeting the impossibly high standard of proof placed upon them. To make matters worse, if any case DOES exist where intervention quickly and quietly brought about an end to the crisis with no negative long-term effects, it would probably have not made front-page headlines and it would have been forgotten about by all but specialists in a few years. In other words, not only is the burden of proof excessively high, but the very cases that might meet that burden are those which we're least likely to have heard about. The issue of media perception definitely has a big impact on the public understanding of foreign intervention. While big military interventions are going to grab the headlines, most interventions peaceful in nature. The US DoD was significantly involved in disaster relief efforts for the Pacific Tsunami (2005), the Pakistan Earthquake (2006), the Burma Cyclone (2007), the Georgia conflict (2008), the Haiti Earthquake (2010), and the Pakistan Flooding (2010). And those were just the major disaster efforts, not counting the standing food relief and demining operations that dominate the focus of US military relief. Then we come to the real elephant in the room - foreign aid in the form of public donations (The US spends $50 billion per year), private donations (i.e. Americans offer up $10 billion per year), and financial assistance (IMF loan programs, corporate investment, etc.). There's a lot of intervening that goes on that doesn't dominate the headlines because it goes relatively smoothly. Slanderer posted:Am I incorrect in assuming that the fallacy that this thread's central premise is based on is that doing nothing is inherently morally neutral (thus making it preferable to any action that could cause harm)? Because that's what I'm getting out of Fire. I think that there is certainly a degree of that, and it's important to remember that inaction isn't really possible. You can decide that your hands are tied, but that is still an action with moral consequences. Kaal fucked around with this message at Jan 21, 2013 around 17:17 |
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 17:05 |
|
|
Imperialist Intervention is justified when it serves the goals of the imperialist doing the intervening. It is literaly non-sensical to speak of a countrys actions as "moral" or "immoral". Those in power do whats in thier best interests while those without power are trampled underfoot. The question being asked in this thread, "Is Imperialist intervention ever justified" doesn't matter at all unless you actually have the power to do something about it. In other words, the only people who ever ask that question are people who don't have the power or conviction to do anything about unjustified intervention. The kind of person who seeks out and gains power would never stop to ask that question. The third world will be hosed over from now until our sun becomes a red giant. Then, we will support dictators and encourage wars to get cheap access to the rare minerals we need in africa to build our ark ships to escape the solar system.
|
| # ? Jan 21, 2013 23:16 |
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Imperialist Intervention is justified when it serves the goals of the imperialist doing the intervening. It is literaly non-sensical to speak of a countrys actions as "moral" or "immoral". What kind of randian nonsense is this?
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 00:38 |
|
|
Does opposition to imperialism mean that we should allow other imperialist aspirants to freely build colonies without intervention?
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 00:51 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Does opposition to imperialism mean that we should allow other imperialist aspirants to freely build colonies without intervention? Sovereignity is usually respected until there's a (extremely qualified) breach of ius cogens, it's just that the execution of sanctions is in the hands of biased powers who use it selectively. Everyone here is in favor of stopping the sickest of the nasty, I'd bet, it's just that by doing so within the confines of the current constellation of international law, we are creating the conditions for future 'justified' imperialism, inserting our own puppets or exploiting the economy remotely. In other words, if the real world, material anti-imperialist/anti-interventionist dogma was applied universally and objectively, the conclusion would soon be reached that the United States is a prime candidate for 'regime change'. The universalizing power of the law, the ability of it to hold all (states) accountable to itself equally exists only as a formality. In the real world, as long as one has might, one is right. The answer to your question in current theory is no, the answer to your question in practice, which here is conflated with theory, is much harder to answer. Do anti-imperialists support colonization? No. Does an anti-imperialist think it is acceptable to breach the sovereignity of another nation to stop such a process? Probably, yes. Does this mean they are morally or logically bound to support interventionist policy? As we've seen, no.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 01:06 |
|
|
Yeah, I think you already know the answer to your own question OP, hense your use of the word 'Imperialist' rather than 'foreign' or 'international.' Would your objection to military intervention be different if it was a LEDC that was intervening? How about a UN lead intervention, would that be considered imperialist or humanitarian?
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 01:13 |
|
|
Fire posted:What kind of randian nonsense is this? It is definitely amoral but is certainly not randian. An Objectivist would say that serving your own interests is good and morally correct, and non-selfish aid is actively evil. WSN's opinion is more akin to Thucydides - "The strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must." If you want to stop what you believe is imperialist intervention than the worst thing you can be doing is posting on an internet forum. Learn how to shoot a weapon and see if Ansar Dine or the Naxalites will have you.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 02:19 |
|
|
Fire posted:But at the same time, the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups were artificial and created by European powers who at the time had really dumb ideas about race and used it to divide the natives. Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure the Tutsi and Hutu groups, themselves, were not created by European powers. The European powers (in this case, Belgium) used preexisting differences to play the two parties off of each other, though.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 02:26 |
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure the Tutsi and Hutu groups, themselves, were not created by European powers. The European powers (in this case, Belgium) used preexisting differences to play the two parties off of each other, though. You're both right. Twa, Hutus and Tutsis were pre-existing ethnic groups that had merged over centuries. Their's was a classic story of small groups of nomad hunter-gatherers (Twa) being pushed aside by organized subsistence farmers (Hutu), who then were conquered by trained and mounted ranchers (Tutsi). Individual Tutsi families were often (but not necessarily) more wealthy after conquering the Hutu back around 1500 AD. They then lived together under a Tutsi king. When Europeans came in 1880, they couldn't tell the difference between the tribes, and arbitrarily declared that upper-class families were Tutsis and the lower-class were Hutus. This caused a lot of upset, which was worsened when the German and Belgian governors began seizing Tutsi land and giving it to Hutus who were willing to convert to Catholicism. More of this terribly divisive policy continued for the next 100 years, with the Europeans constantly playing favorites and pitting one arbitrary tribe against the other, until finally it erupted into a brutal bloodbath that the Europeans washed their hands of. Pretty cartoonishly terrible in retrospect. It reminds me of Jane Elliott's Blue/Brown-Eye exercise in discrimination - only with machetes and gone horribly wrong. edit: I should mention that the centuries of intermarriage and arbitrary redefinition have essentially eradicated any difference between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The scientific consensus is that they comprise a single ethnicity. But the traditional indicators are size (a function of wealth supporting a good diet) and facial features that look more caucasian (supposedly due to the Tutsi's traveling past, but more likely a social creation reflecting European rule and the role of Tutsis as traditional leaders). In a civil war that saw 500,000 die in extremely violent ways, you can imagine what kind of hosed up situations arose when being too tall/short or looking too white/black could get your hand cut off. Kaal fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 04:15 |
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 02:47 |
|
|
Cream-of-Plenty posted:Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure the Tutsi and Hutu groups, themselves, were not created by European powers. The European powers (in this case, Belgium) used preexisting differences to play the two parties off of each other, though. Basically you had two tribes that did not really get along who were then told to be a unified people after some Europeans determined their borders.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 03:02 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:People who want to argue in the affirmative have no way of meeting the impossibly high standard of proof placed upon them. To make matters worse, if any case DOES exist where intervention quickly and quietly brought about an end to the crisis with no negative long-term effects, it would probably have not made front-page headlines and it would have been forgotten about by all but specialists in a few years. In other words, not only is the burden of proof excessively high, but the very cases that might meet that burden are those which we're least likely to have heard about. This is a really good point, and things get weird fast when leftists basically have to rely upon the mainstream media, since the "alternative media" is largely derivative and provides a different angle on what have already been pre-determined as the "largest" issues, rather than redefining what we focus on. I've yet to see a western leftist publication decide the real story isn't Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran but rather Kyrgyzstan and Chechnya. I knew a guy who worked for the UN and was part of their very successful limited-scope peacekeeping mission in the Solomon islands to keep the civil war and tribal conflicts from boiling over into a real war. It was pretty successful, so successful that no one's ever heard of it and sometimes even I forget and talk poo poo about the UN being useless. SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Remember to split the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia from the actual Bosnian War, which was not only started a decade earlier, but has nothing to do with Kosovo (or the bombing of Serbia in 1999 by NATO, which is inevitably going to be brought up, all in the same breath). I don't think these things can really be divided, since they all stemmed from the same question: would there be a majority-Serb Yugoslav successor state incorporating significant amounts of non-Serb territory and population, or not? As I understand it from what happened on the ground in Kosovo: Nato began bombing JNA positions inside Serbia and Kosovo, and within Kosovo there was massive Serb retaliation with city centers and villages being burned, lots of refugees, lots of terror, and a lot of the Kosovar intelligensia were arrested and detained, some of them tortured and a few killed. Much of this done with no small amount of active collaboration and support from local Serb populations, either in whole or in part. Serb control of cultural activities and civil society meant shutting down all the albanian language state schools, with the lovely result that my friend and his older brothers received most of their education from an increasingly radicalizing madrasa that ended up producing at least a dozen mujaheddin, some of whom are probably still floating around. The city I spent the most time in is about 2 miles from the Albanian border so they saw some of the worst of it, since the JNA had a big presence there on the nearby hills to try to keep KLA guys from crossing. About 90% of the 16th century wooden downtown was burned down after the Nato bombing, and the central mosque was shelled, along with the historic catholic church. It was embarrassing how much they loved Americans there, but also understandable: the Serbs were treating them like poo poo, we bombed the serbs, made them leave and are keeping them from coming back, therefore America is their savior. You can reduce it to power politics and prove that America doesn't actually give a poo poo about them and it was part of a cynical policy of empire and hegemony, but you can't change what it means subjectively to those groups who are inadvertently helped by the machinations of competing powers. Kurdish Iraq is another strange place like this--all the other ethnic groups in the region (turks, arabs, persians) have a vested interest in working together to repress them indefinitely. Naturally, the Kurds are ecstatically pro-American since it's a foreign power that's indifferent to the interests of their historical oppressors. Who the imperialist is in a given situation depends largely on who your enemies are.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 05:00 |
|
|
A sexy submarine posted:Yeah, I think you already know the answer to your own question OP, hense your use of the word 'Imperialist' rather than 'foreign' or 'international.' Would your objection to military intervention be different if it was a LEDC that was intervening? How about a UN lead intervention, would that be considered imperialist or humanitarian? Neither of those terms are synonymous with imperialism. I'm talking about a powerful global north country jumping in to a global south country and messing with them, be it to build colonies, regime change, or to "help" when it isn't asked for.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 05:26 |
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Sovereignity is usually respected until there's a (extremely qualified) breach of ius cogens, it's just that the execution of sanctions is in the hands of biased powers who use it selectively. Everyone here is in favor of stopping the sickest of the nasty, I'd bet, it's just that by doing so within the confines of the current constellation of international law, we are creating the conditions for future 'justified' imperialism, inserting our own puppets or exploiting the economy remotely. How would you prevent another country from building an empire without meaningfully intervening in the affairs of the countries involved? For instance, Korea, China, and Gulf states are buying up Africa and somewhat colonizing various parts of it both with and without state support. The US theoretically should stay out of the arrangements these countries make.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 05:35 |
|
|
Fire posted:Neither of those terms are synonymous with imperialism. I'm talking about a powerful global north country jumping in to a global south country and messing with them, be it to build colonies, regime change, or to "help" when it isn't asked for. quote:Is it ever ok for powerful countries to intervene in the matters of global south countries? "Anti-imperialist" rhetoric regarding power relations between different countries seems hopelessly poisoned, confused, reductionist and therefore useless in the real world, and this is a good summation as to why.
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 05:35 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 10:23 |
|
|
Smerdyakov posted:It was embarrassing how much they loved Americans there, but also understandable: the Serbs were treating them like poo poo, we bombed the serbs, made them leave and are keeping them from coming back, therefore America is their savior. You can reduce it to power politics and prove that America doesn't actually give a poo poo about them and it was part of a cynical policy of empire and hegemony, but you can't change what it means subjectively to those groups who are inadvertently helped by the machinations of competing powers. A similar thing clearly happened in Libya; after the criminally imperialist, aggressive NATO assault Libyans are now undoubtedly the most pro-American Arab nation in the MENA region. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156539/o...tions-west.aspx  
az jan jananam fucked around with this message at Jan 22, 2013 around 06:22 |
| # ? Jan 22, 2013 06:08 |
|
