Friday, January 25, 2013

Perhaps some humanitarian intervention is warranted....

Not to overthrow regimes or to decide the winners or losers in a fight, but instead to enforce the rules of war. If one side is doing things that are illegal within the scope of the laws of war, it may be a good thing to intervene to prevent them from doing so. For instance in Syria, intervention on the side of the rebels would be interfering with the domestic politics of the country, but doing some sort of tactical intervention to prevent the Syrian forces from committing atrocities against civilians may be all right. Nothing pre-emptive would be permitted, in distinction to folks who have said that since Syria has chemical weapons we should just destroy them before they can use them. It would be a more assertive form of UN Peace Keeping.

Of course all of this can be manipulated for the benefit of capitalist interests, yet it's heart breaking to see the overt, direct, intervention by the U.S. in Libya, which should have been more cooperative, be complemented by a lack of any action whatsoever in Syria. In the interest of not opening up the potential for geo-politcal exploitation we've turned a blind eye to things that are outside of the realm of the permissible.

Again, neutrality is the goal, letting the conflict fight itself out lawfully, to whatever conclusion it comes to.

No comments: