This is a follow-up to my comment on Shashank's post. It's a separate question from his, so I thought I'd put it in a new thread.
Individually, Somalia and Rwanda are terrible and fascinating cases. Thinking about them together, I've been struggling with this question. In Somalia, we did something and it went horribly wrong. In Rwanda, we didn't do anything, and it went horribly wrong. The decision to intervene in Somalia may not have made Somalis worse off, but it definitely made American's worse off (individually for the soldiers who died, and collectively in terms of IR); inaction in Rwanda made Rwandan's worse off and makes Americans (and probably the rest of the signatory nations of the Geneva Convention) feel guilty and embarrassed.
Here's the long and short of it: the argument in favor of intervention is basically "If we can, we must." What if intervention doesn't make things any better? Sure, we can intervene, but we can't solve any problems. Must we intervene anyway? I agree that peace and tenure security are necessary preconditions for development, but how often does peace enforcement work?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Do peace-keeping or peace-enforcing missions create the sort of peace that enables development?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's a great question! I read an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/892592.stm) from BBC that did an overview of the peacekeeping missions of the UN. Interestingly, it seems the majority of the peacekeeping missions did not have great success. But like you said, should we intervene anyway? It seems that, so far, the long-term peace needed for development has not been achieved. But even in the case of Rwanda, many lives were saved. So although the goals may not have been reached, at least killings were prevented for some people. So maybe the short-term benefits make it still worth intervening.
ReplyDeleteTough question. At times it may be better in the long run if we don't intervene, but people will be butchered in the short run if we don't. How do you balance your long-term goals with your short term moral obligations? The same question applies to Haiti. How do we address the immediate post-disaster needs today while not creating a crippling cycle of dependency and corruption? How do you give away all this stuff for free and still keep from destroying the market?
ReplyDeleteSometimes I feel like I'm laughing inside when reading about the UN peacekeepers. Perhaps the peacekeeping mission of the UN could be successful in certain situations, but not if they are so uninformed. It could be the bias of the author, but it just seemed that the Peacekeepers went in blind. It seemed as though they got in way over their heads, being low on numbers and equipment of any kind. Not to mention they were not allowed to make any moves without asking for permission from people who were not there and had not seen all the horrible things. That just seems odd to me. Seems that those who are there should be able to determine what moves to make. However perhaps it keeps the peacekeepers who are in Rwanda from making rash decisions. I just want to know if the peacekeepers were really that ignorant and if those giving them orders are really in that much denial.
ReplyDelete