While watching the video "The Devil's Footpath" today a thought came to my head regarding the message of the video. That the video was trying to show us the images of struggling nations and peoples to push us into action. Although, this message is a correct one because of the suffering happening in African nations, we have to be careful not to become too idealistic. For example, the parts we watched today in class showed Egypt and Sudan, both of these nations have problems in which the government has a clear hand, and in Egypt the US supports the government and in Sudan the US is indifferent towards the government.
Although these facts may lead us to quickly condemn US policy and push for a complete change of the policy, we have to realize that there are real and important interests that the US is pursuing in these nations. Regarding Egypt, although the government seemingly represses dissent within the populace, it also is a key ally in the War against Al Qaeda. With Sudan, although the government continues a horrendous civil war, it also sits on top of a large oil deposit.
Both the oil and the help against Al Qaeda are very important policy interests that the US has. It may seem crass and inhumane to state that we must witness and be indifferent to the mass killings in Darfur because of oil, but it is the hard truth. The US economy runs on oil and we need to diversify our sources and keep a continued supply flowing. With regards to Egypt's anti-democratic repression of dissent, it is a problem, but if we try to change their policies, Egypt's government might stop aiding our war effort, which would cause bigger problems than a few protesters being jailed.
The bottom line is that we cannot and should not sacrifice our interests on the altar of humanitarian aid. However, it is also not prudent to end the matter with the above statement, if we have to have a solution, and we do, it has to be a solution that looks after our interests first and aid second. Otherwise we will be hurting ourselves to make other peoples' lives better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, I do think that there is potentially a dangerous response to The Devil's Footpath, or other films that illustrate problems and try to move people to action. I disagree, however, that the danger is idealism, but I think this will be a great discussion.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely other considerations to humanitarian aid than suffering alone. Although it may sound terrible to suggest that saving human life is cost-prohibitive, I think that may be true in certain situations. I don't think it's necessary for all of us to live like refugees until some acceptable standard of living is obtained for each person on Earth.
However, I'm thinking about things on a micro level. The idea of the US Government pursuing policies that adversely affect individuals in the name of "US Interests" makes me really uneasy, and it's something I'd like to discuss. What's the difference if the individual is a US citizen or the citizen of another country?
Perhaps this issue is simply another iteration of political realism vs political liberalism. If countries are in a race for limited resources, Shashank's argument holds. If our view changes, the argument loses traction.
Shashank,
ReplyDeleteWhile I recognize your criticism of an idealistic mentality, I cannot (correct me if I'm wrong) think of any situation where sincere and genuinely selfless generosity has resulted in an atrocity for the U.S. I would argue that devaluing generosity, in its most vital sense, is just as dangerous as compromising U.S. citizen's well-being.
Though some people would find my stance hyper-optimistic, I can't help but state that human condition, regardless of national boundary, should take precedence. The situation in Darfur doesn't just seem crass and inhumane--as if we lack the wherewithal to recognize genocide for why it really exists--it IS crass and inhumane, especially in the name of a gluttonous appetite for oil. The idea of our interests taking precedence over those of fellow-human beings abroad is justification for the birthright of nationality, which is entirely unethical.
I don't, by any means, think that the preservation of a nation such as the U.S., as it is, is something to look down upon. I do, however, look down upon the types of things some of our nation's policymakers are working so hard to preserve, i.e. oil resources. And if not what we're working to preserve, then our inaction in bettering the lives of absolutely impoverished and genuinely needy people because it wont serve us in some way or another.
Not denying that there are several Non-Governmental Organizations that are committed to aid outside the political realm; there should be no shame in human character and/or agenda that reflect exceptional qualities devoid of egoism and recompense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Carly in that we personally can't loose by helping others. However, I think Shashank's argument is far beyond the grass roots effors of individuals and NGOs. What Shashank is saying is valid. Governments do need to reach out in humanitarian efforts; however, there are always political strings attatched. In 1993, the US pursued a purely humanitarian mission in Somalia that ended in the loss of American lives. Although the American fatalities were minimal, it still affected the American perspective. It made people think, "We lost lives and gained nothing." To a large extent, our loss in Somalia prevented the US from wanting to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. While I personally think it is good to help out where we can, nation-states need to be cautious in what actions they take.
ReplyDeleteI concur, to some degree.
ReplyDeleteWho is pbtranslations might I ask?
Sorry, it's me, Porter. I accidentally logged on with another user name.
ReplyDeleteAh, that helps.
ReplyDeleteIn sudan, there is more to it than just oil. It seems that Darfur become a hot topic just as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were hitting their climax. More and more American's began to hate the war. This put increased pressure on U.S. policy makers. Could they begin a third intervention while already engaged in two unpopular wars? congress had its image to defend (or at least try to repair).
ReplyDeleteHowever, perhaps this just demonstrates that foreign governments will always have excuses not to intervene in humanitarian tragedies. Perhaps there will always be prevailing national interests that discourage governments from from coming to the rescue. maybe aid and development should depend less on foreign governments and more on NGO's, the private sector, and national governments of developing nations