Comments on: “Legalized Imperialism”: “Responsibility to Protect” and the Dubious Case of Haiti http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2005/12/03/legalized-imperialism-responsibility-to-protect-and-the-dubious-case-of-haiti/ Fiercely independent (and often irreverent) news & views. Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:05:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Viagra http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2005/12/03/legalized-imperialism-responsibility-to-protect-and-the-dubious-case-of-haiti/#comment-18 Viagra Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:20:24 +0000 http://briarpatchmagazine.com/test/?p=93#comment-18 <strong>sudan adoption</strong> Well said! sudan adoption

Well said!

]]> By: Undertow » Turn off your opponent’s microphone, change a country http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2005/12/03/legalized-imperialism-responsibility-to-protect-and-the-dubious-case-of-haiti/#comment-17 Undertow » Turn off your opponent’s microphone, change a country Thu, 25 May 2006 00:11:52 +0000 http://briarpatchmagazine.com/test/?p=93#comment-17 [...] To make matters worse - I mean in terms of democracy - our tax dollars (through our funding of CIDA projects) are serving to export to Haiti the council’s concept of Real Democracy. We’ve just sent a few of our topnotch media people (Council of the Wise People, Missionary Division Alpha) to teach Haitians the recipe for proper, responsible journalism. We have, after all, a Responsibility to Protect. [...] [...] To make matters worse - I mean in terms of democracy - our tax dollars (through our funding of CIDA projects) are serving to export to Haiti the council’s concept of Real Democracy. We’ve just sent a few of our topnotch media people (Council of the Wise People, Missionary Division Alpha) to teach Haitians the recipe for proper, responsible journalism. We have, after all, a Responsibility to Protect. [...]

]]> By: Rick Battams http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2005/12/03/legalized-imperialism-responsibility-to-protect-and-the-dubious-case-of-haiti/#comment-16 Rick Battams Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:59:00 +0000 http://briarpatchmagazine.com/test/?p=93#comment-16 I have marked Fenton's book for eventual purchase. It's hard to keep up with all the atrocities in this world. But I'm older and I've gotten a bit more organized and my pc is immensely useful. (I've got a couple of folders in my WordPerfect just for Haiti articles I come across.) Therefore, When the US-led coup went down in Haiti, I was wide awake for it. I won't forget it and what it means. I do not know what else Fenton says about Haiti, since I don't yet possess his book. But I have a problem with a wholesale rejection of the idea of humanitarian intervention. And I am not sure that Fenton is accurately conveying Chomsky's views here. Chomsky seems to say, in my reading of him, that the problem with humanitarian intervention isn't in the concept, problematic as it is, but rather it lies with which power does it. And it all hinges on a 'good faith' test, which today's superpower (and it's allies) fails utterly. I've got more than half a dozen books by Chomsky, including THE NEW MILITARY HUMANISM. In practice, humanitarian intervention has not been done by greater powers claiming to do it. Chomsky notes, on page 40 of ROGUE STATES - THE RULE OF FORCE IN WORLD AFFFAIRS that "We may also bear in mind a truism: the right of humanitarian intervention, if it exists, is premised on the "good faith" of those intervening, and that assumption is based not on their rhetoric but on their record, in particular their record of adherence to the principles of international law, World Court decisions, and so on. That is indeed a truism, at least with regard to others." A state is still composed of individuals who possess free moral agency. Even it's leaders do. 'If' the US wanted to intervene in sovereign Sudan, let's say, to stop the atrocities happening in it's Darfur region, and if it's president was human and if most of his cabinet was human and if former administrations were human and humane, so that there could be the 'good faith' foundation with which to morally persuade others to support such action, Would we not welcome a genuine humanitarian intervention into Darfur? The US makes us all nuts. But we still need to think clearly. It's hard, but not impossible. I have marked Fenton’s book for eventual purchase. It’s hard to keep up with all the atrocities in this world. But I’m older and I’ve gotten a bit more organized and my pc is immensely useful. (I’ve got a couple of folders in my WordPerfect just for Haiti articles I come across.) Therefore, When the US-led coup went down in Haiti, I was wide awake for it. I won’t forget it and what it means.

I do not know what else Fenton says about Haiti, since I don’t yet possess his book. But I have a problem with a wholesale rejection of the idea of humanitarian intervention. And I am not sure that Fenton is accurately conveying Chomsky’s views here. Chomsky seems to say, in my reading of him, that the problem with humanitarian intervention isn’t in the concept, problematic as it is, but rather it lies with which power does it. And it all hinges on a ‘good faith’ test, which today’s superpower (and it’s allies) fails utterly.

I’ve got more than half a dozen books by Chomsky, including THE NEW MILITARY HUMANISM.

In practice, humanitarian intervention has not been done by greater powers claiming to do it. Chomsky notes, on page 40 of ROGUE STATES - THE RULE OF FORCE IN WORLD AFFFAIRS that “We may also bear in mind a truism: the right of humanitarian intervention, if it exists, is premised on the “good faith” of those intervening, and that assumption is based not on their rhetoric but on their record, in particular their record of adherence to the principles of international law, World Court decisions, and so on. That is indeed a truism, at least with regard to others.”

A state is still composed of individuals who possess free moral agency. Even it’s leaders do. ‘If’ the US wanted to intervene in sovereign Sudan, let’s say, to stop the atrocities happening in it’s Darfur region, and if it’s president was human and if most of his cabinet was human and if former administrations were human and humane, so that there could be the ‘good faith’ foundation with which to morally persuade others to support such action, Would we not welcome a genuine humanitarian intervention into Darfur?

The US makes us all nuts. But we still need to think clearly. It’s hard, but not impossible.

]]>