Ban American Marriage

We have seen too much of this "American stuff!" if we keep allowing them to marry, the world as we know it will come to an end.

Time to act now!

Thank god New Zealand is here to show us the path of the righteous.

This is just too good!

20-year old American solves complex dilemma of Ecuadorian family

Asked “Are Ecuadorians less mature then Americans?” someone reopened (in my mind) the can of worms I have tried to duck-tape closed for several years (and therefore refrained from ever bringing it up in conversation with “mi amigos estadounidenses”): egocentric ignorance resulted from a sheltered life. She is a senior in college and studied a semester in Ecuador. The host family she had stayed with was from a poor suburban/rural area. When her host-family was debating weather their older daughter aged 19 should go to university they asked for her “American” take on this serious family debate. The answer was prompt: “you got some money? Go to university and you will make more in the long run. You don’t have the money? Get a job!” As the family showed their appreciation for this blunt yet, surprisingly simple, yet never-thought-of answer to their question, the brilliant exchange student is praising herself for her maturity in solving an entire Ecuadorian family’s most difficult dilemma. The implicit conclusion was (what else!) that Ecuadorians are much less mature than Americans. Of course, matters of emotional maturity are invisible to the average emotionally immature American.

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(4): Conclusion

Currently, in military interventions across the world such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of the positive image of humanitarianism has heightened the potential to damage, if not completely obliterate the genuinely humanitarian organizations[1]. Their raison d'être, easing suffering where it is needed, is possible via the reputation of impartiality for the cause and dedication to the effects of the conflict. While not always welcomed, NGOs such as MSF have been tolerated, if not by governments directly, at least by the locals they helped[2]. In 2002, in Afghanistan, independent aid workers have been targeted repeatedly for their perceived allegiance to the invading force.

Military intervention presented as humanitarian in nature, co-optation of NGO by the military, in order to help the post invasion reconstruction efforts, as well as the military use of civilian/humanitarian actions in order to rally local support have made it difficult to determine if the organizations on the ground were outsiders to the conflict or “the vanguard of expeditionary troops” of newly-defined-just wars[3]. “Whatever their legitimacy, armed interventions intended to assist and protect civilian populations put aid workers at risk from the moment they are deployed under the humanitarian banner”[4]. It is essential that neither the Security Council nor the international intervention force leader should include humanitarian actors in their camp. In case the western state or whatever international interveners claim a humanitarian role, or demand help from the aid organizations, the impartiality of such organizations is compromised, and they become not only unable to provide help where it is needed, but also become vulnerable targets through the nature of their work.

In order to be efficient and impartial, a “humanitarian intervention” should be made in a responsible way. The responsibility should emerge somewhat similarly to the legal ability to prosecute crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction in the sense that, if states feel they have the ability to act upon the crisis and have the vast majority of the states endorsing the action, they should do it. With the UN taking a more impartial, yet consistent role, and having humanitarian aid and military intervention having as little ideological and practical overlap as possible, humanitarian intervention will take a new shape. This approach however, requires a rather dramatic change in the way humanitarian intervention is regarded, at least in the Western world.

---

[1] Woollacott, Martin. Humanitarians Must Avoid Becoming Tools of Power

[2] Weissman, Fabrice. Military Humanitarianism: A Deadly Confusion.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(3): Guidelines for Intervention

Now that we have established when and where humanitarian intervention is necessary, it is important to outline the key guidelines such an intervention should follow, in order to remain consistent with its goals of alleviating greatest suffering. Post September 11 the term “humanitarian intervention” was exploited for rallying local and international support for military interventions. Since such intervention was deemed humanitarian in nature, without having a broad agreement among states that this was the case, the idea of military action for the protection of human rights has been seriously compromised. If it is to retain any legitimacy, humanitarian intervention needs to distance itself from what it is now. To facilitate this process, the UN needs to distance itself from taking the lead in humanitarian intervention and as the intervention progresses the military and civil aspects need to be kept separate, for the sake of the population on behalf the intervention is conducted. First, UN should refrain from conducting such operations itself and leave states, local organizations or groups of states handle the military intervention. While the states willingness not to abuse the right to intervene may be doubtful under the current conditions, under the normative framework presented above, states will not intervene in the absence of a broad international consensus approving their action. The key in regaining legitimacy for military action as a mean to reduce suffering is to depoliticize the humanitarian aspect by distancing it from the military one. The UN and the humanitarian NGO should not be compromised from their work to relief suffering even when a war takes place. It is intuitive that if the UN is regarded as one of the partakers in the war (as it is the case with the peacemaking missions) they will cease to be regarded as the impartial mediator. Both the UN and the NGOs need to maintain their equidistance and dedication to humanitarianism more than anything else.

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(2): Asking the wrong question

It is the case that the effects of military intervention hurt the very object that is trying to defend: human life. When humanitarian intervention results in a war it causes violence, destruction, human suffering, and lost resources by the society as a whole, even in the situations of jus ad bellum[1]. With respect to the humanitarian aspect, when grave violations of human rights occur, the states have developed the routine[2] to condemn the violations of human rights. From an ethical standpoint the universality of human rights has as much weight as the issue of human suffering[3]. However, from a purely practical perspective, the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to create the necessary conditions for human well-being. In this case it is not the rights themselves that need to be protected but they are merely a tool for protecting humanity and humans against suffering[4].

The current international system of states functions in such a way that resources are not only unequally distributed among states, but they are also scarce. Concomitantly, a whole range of variables play into the reasons why not all humans can enjoy the full range of human rights as outlined by the 1948 Declaration of Human Righits. However, the complexity of reality should not prevent the human society from striving to better itself. In order to ameliorate the situation, the world needs “to fix” what works “the worst”. Since it is humans and humanity that we are attempting to protect, it so happens that “the worst” means human suffering at its highest: people dying. Therefore, what international actors need to ask themselves is how to make the worst situations better and when is it worth to use force for achieving the goals of improving such a situation.

The essence of humanitarianism is asking “who needs help in this conflict?” and not “who is right in this conflict?”[5] In a similar fashion, asking the proper question the debate on where to intervene also becomes clearer. Being consistent with the purpose of the Human Rights, “who needs help?” is more appropriate than asking “who has more human rights abused”, or “who is right in a conflict”[6]. It is not uncommon that the answers for these questions are hardly the same. The migration away from this basic concept of “who needs help?” has heightened the importance of politically important situations, argued on humanitarian (and human rights grounds) at the cost of the situations in which the suffering is the greatest. Crude mortality rates should be one of the most relevant indicators of human suffering[7]. States should support sustainable amelioration of the cases of such extreme suffering situations. For that purpose, they should become the priority, and while it can be the case that they are correlated to human rights abuses, the cases of extreme human suffering should not be mistaken cases of extreme human rights abuses.

However human suffering has different levels of intensity and the world has not the obligation to act every time. Under the moral framework described so far, however, the priority should be to alleviate the absolute worst of the situations. If it is a mass famine, a civil war, or a disease, the world has the obligation to act in order to stop it. It is essential to uproot the current humanitarian idea that sees its definition bent to unnatural curvatures in order to fit political and economic interests, and re-root it back as a dedication to address the highest degree of human suffering at each point in time. It is often the case that such dedication is deadlocked in the current system of managing humanitarian intervention. While states recognize humanitarian crises when they occur, breaking the deadlock, but that the deadlock is broken when normative ethical values, are able to rally enough political support in order to have the vast majority of the states committed to solve it. Once this political will exists, crisis management possibilities grow exponentially. When both consensus and commitment are present, the political pressures, diplomacy and the carrots become much more effective. Similarly sticks become thicker and heavier. It is only when such politically wide will to solve the most urgent problem for the victims when a military action, labeled “humanitarian intervention” should exist. Such intervention is needed solely where its purpose remains to significantly improve the situation of the suffering. It is essential to note that neither full respect for human rights nor democracy or capitalism is essential for this purpose.

---

[1] Judith Gail Gardam, Proportionality and Force in International Law

[2] Jack Donnelly, Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights

[3] Ibid

[4] M Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry

Catherine Dumait-Harper, The Responsibility to protect

[5] Fabrice Weissman. Military Humanitarianism: A Deadly Confusion

[6] Martin Woollacott: Humanitarians must avoid becoming tools of power

[7] Ibid

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(1): Intro

The following 3-4 posts are an altered draft of my thoughts on humanitarian intervention. I should say that parts of this are results of research and therefore not my personal ideas, however, as a whole this is how the cookie should crumble, if I were god.

Developing a set of criteria for guiding decisions about humanitarian intervention is difficult without seeing everything in a broad context. Particularly, in the light of the post September 11 developments with respect to this matter, humanitarian intervention needs to be re-examined fundamentally before asking questions of where, when and why is it required. I propose escaping the limitations of the recent debate on the topic which involves definitions that are more or less precise, and their abundant interpretations. In essence the question should be “When, where and how is inter-state violence appropriate in order to alleviate human suffering?”

In order to address this, I will begin by explaining how the above question is more relevant that simply asking about humanitarian intervention. Then I will explain when and how alleviation of suffering is humanitarian, and under what circumstances it would require military action. In case such action takes place, I will outline the major guidelines it should follow, of which, the key is to prevent the overlap between the military and humanitarianism. The conclusion will delineate how this leads in one direction: completely rethinking, if not removing, humanitarian intervention as we currently know it.