Pride vrs. Practicality, Foreign Intervention.

[Phier]

One theme I see come up over and over is how intervention of a foreign power to aid in a revolution, government imposed humanitarian disaster, even genocide is undesirable.

Some claim the people are too proud to accept help, seem to think they would rebel against that help and still others think its all about imperialism.

Perhaps these feelings are fueled by the constant interventions of the cold war and some of the negative results of said interventions, perhaps for other motives, but it seems the western world has a hands off approach to foreign policy, for whatever reason.

What I find a bit perplexing is why. I live in a country who may well not exist in its current form if it were not for foreign intervention. If there ever were to come a time where I was on a side fighting a rebellion and losing, I'd welcome any help I could get. Pride is one thing, losing is another.

But I'm interested in what others think. When is it time to intervene? Under what circumstances is it acceptable? Would you rather fail in your cause than ask for foreign help?

[Poach]

It would very much depend on who you asked for foreign help.

The US was fortunate in that their aid didn't attempt to take control of the country afterwards or turn it into a puppet. Many rebellions may refuse to ask for foreign help due to fears over this matter.

Most foreign aid, especially to something potentially damaging to the aid providers international reputation such as aiding in rebellion comes with strings attatched, many may fear those strings.

[Mikelus Trento]

If you are asking when any individual nation should intervene....never.

If you are asking when an international organization (like the UN) should intervene....not often enough.

[Каие]

One theme I see come up over and over is how intervention of a foreign power to aid in a revolution, government imposed humanitarian disaster, even genocide is undesirable.

Some claim the people are too proud to accept help, seem to think they would rebel against that help and still others think its all about imperialism.

Perhaps these feelings are fueled by the constant interventions of the cold war and some of the negative results of said interventions, perhaps for other motives, but it seems the western world has a hands off approach to foreign policy, for whatever reason.

What I find a bit perplexing is why. I live in a country who may well not exist in its current form if it were not for foreign intervention. If there ever were to come a time where I was on a side fighting a rebellion and losing, I'd welcome any help I could get. Pride is one thing, losing is another.

But I'm interested in what others think. When is it time to intervene? Under what circumstances is it acceptable? Would you rather fail in your cause than ask for foreign help?

The only times are to prevent bona fide genocide/ethnic cleansing, or when we are obligated to do so by law, I.e. a treaty.

We also shouldn't prop up outdated regimes like the Saudis and Africans. Governments should be afraid of their people. At least in the third world.

[Pickle_mole]

The only times are to prevent bona fide genocide/ethnic cleansing, or when we are obligated to do so by law, I.e. a treaty.

We also shouldn't prop up outdated regimes like the Saudis and Africans. Governments should be afraid of their people. At least in the third world.

I disagree, we should back governments/movements that value freedom for thier sake and ours.

[Desperado †]

I disagree, we should back governments/movements that value freedom for thier sake and ours.

Only when the freedom in question is fair democracy.

If we're democratic, and they're democratic, and they vote to not have their freedoms then it's totally unacceptable that some people they didn't elect send in troops and make their government change. So logically, the only time we should intervene is to ensure that there is fair democracy. Of course, a state that murders it's own populace and did not promise this in the last election and is doing this secretly without the majority of the populace knowing, is not a fair democracy. A fair democracy must be transparent to an extent. And of course, restriction of freedom of speech is not a fair democracy.

[Giuliano Taverna]

The only times are to prevent bona fide genocide/ethnic cleansing, or when we are obligated to do so by law, I.e. a treaty.

We also shouldn't prop up outdated regimes like the Saudis and Africans. Governments should be afraid of their people. At least in the third world.

This, and sanctions against nations that violate human rights.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

If you are asking when any individual nation should intervene....never.

No more USA....

[spartan117]

Maybe it would be best to define what constitutes 'help' and motives of this 'help.'

[Fibur]

One theme I see come up over and over is how intervention of a foreign power to aid in a revolution, government imposed humanitarian disaster, even genocide is undesirable.

Some claim the people are too proud to accept help, seem to think they would rebel against that help and still others think its all about imperialism.

Perhaps these feelings are fueled by the constant interventions of the cold war and some of the negative results of said interventions, perhaps for other motives, but it seems the western world has a hands off approach to foreign policy, for whatever reason.

What I find a bit perplexing is why. I live in a country who may well not exist in its current form if it were not for foreign intervention. If there ever were to come a time where I was on a side fighting a rebellion and losing, I'd welcome any help I could get. Pride is one thing, losing is another.

But I'm interested in what others think. When is it time to intervene? Under what circumstances is it acceptable? Would you rather fail in your cause than ask for foreign help?

It's a very interesting points, and I hope I can answer some of it.
I think the main problem is not pride, but politics. Take the example of a rebellion against an authoritarian government. Their goals are democracy, freedom, pluralism, etc... everything you could ask from a democratic movement. Furthemore, they benefit from a broad popular support. As a western country promoting the same ideals than the rebels, you begin to help them financially. You give the government a fabulous propaganda tool: the rebels are not democrats, but rather act on behalf of an imperialist power. Even if it's false, it can be enough to strenghten the government's position an weaken the rebel's one. In the end, you helped indirectly to crush the rebellion.

On the other hand, helping dissident movements can be justified if a governement deliberately oppresses a part of the population or refuse to fulfill its basic obligations toward its citizens.

[Каие]

Then do you mind handing me the millions of your soldiers to invade Africa from the Cape horn all the way to Beijing?

[Pickle_mole]

who said anything about invading?

[Каие]

you're going to have to in order to ''back the movements who value freedom''. Since one exists in every single un-free country.

[Pickle_mole]

you're going to have to in order to ''back the movements who value freedom''. Since one exists in every single un-free country.

no you dont. You could fund protesters to increase their capabilities, you could supply arms to movements, put political/economic pressure on the incumbent government etc.

[Каие]

no you dont. You could fund protesters to increase their capabilities, you could supply arms to movements, put political/economic pressure on the incumbent government etc.

Hah! And you call the Left naive!

Come on.

[Buddhababe]

It is one thing to "Intervene", it is another to form alliances. Some of the movements we are watching today are not breaking from their government. They are not revolutionaries. They are demanding their government to act. It would be wrong to intervene. But let us say hypothetically, they decided to be revolutionaries. They did what the early Americans did, they wrote and proclaimed their Independence. Then they made allies to further their hopes for success. The country who is coming to aid is no longer "intervening", but an Ally.

Genocide is always touchy. When is it meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country and when is it an International humanitarian crisis? It is when it spills over borders. And it usually does. Intervention is OK when genocide is spilling over borders and affecting the surrounding countries. One can always hope it would be a multi-national intervention with surrounding countries affected involved. Multi-national action is always much better swallowed on the international scene than uni-lateral action. And I talk of real multi-nationalism, not the uni-lateral ism that is disguised as a joint intervention.

[Pickle_mole]

Hah! And you call the Left naive!

Come on.

is this a joke? are you intending to say that aiding groups to suit your interests never works/helps? What about the french resistance? what about Muhajideen (they stopped the friggen soviets)? and countless other examples of how they can be used and effective.

[Каие]

is this a joke? are you intending to say that aiding groups to suit your interests never works/helps?

What about the french resistance?

WW2.

what about Muhajideen (they stopped the friggen soviets)?

Afghan Civil War ---> Taliban -----> 9/11 ---> Afghan war ----> Iraq war

So, yeah, clearly this doesn't work very well.

[Pious Agnost]

no you dont. You could fund protesters to increase their capabilities, you could supply arms to movements, put political/economic pressure on the incumbent government etc.

Sounds a bit like the Muhajideen.

Whatever happened to them?

[Viking Prince]

Intervention can take many forms. When the IMF and the World Bank refuses to help a floundering country and the government then falls -- this is intervention. When a government puts up trade barriers to keep trade from flowing such as the USA with Cuba -- this is intervention. It does not have to take the form of secret cash and arms to a jungle based rebel unit in El Salvador or to sending the marines into Haiti. Most interventions are multinational but seldom is military action multinational.

Just my quick thoughts on the topic.