tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post6974910879879655504..comments2024-01-22T08:56:51.629-08:00Comments on Zacstravaganza!: Do We Have a ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Civilians in Côte d’Ivoire?Zachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00977280731502216845noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post-52193047655503392242011-10-11T23:21:52.324-07:002011-10-11T23:21:52.324-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Buy RS Goldhttp://zyy.com/RS-Gold/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post-21466357079710798932011-04-06T08:01:56.736-07:002011-04-06T08:01:56.736-07:00With every passing hour it seems that the UN i.e. ...With every passing hour it seems that the UN i.e. French humanitarian intervention is a noble effort, incontrovertibly noble indeed, but it is so ludicrously late in the game. The massacres of Abobo and Duékué have already happened. The FN is presently advancing floor by floor in the residence where Gbagbo is reportedly cowering in the basement. Pardon me if I'm not impressed by the fact that just now France seized the airport in Abidjan so she could evacuate her nationals, and that she blew up an arms depot at the 11th hour. <br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12985638<br /><br />As to Côte d’Ivoire : Libya, I must admit that though I was a skeptic at first I’ve warmed to Odyssey Dawn more and more. Call me a flip-flopper, call me a scurrilous scalawag, so be it. I do think, however, that it is a healthy thing for one to be reflexively isolationist and pacifist, and that the embrace of arms should only be out of reluctant necessity. I must admit that I am duly impressed by the Obama administration’s restraint and modesty in this whole affair; perhaps I should have realized that a constitutional law professor is going to prosecute war with painstaking attention to legal necessity?<br /><br />Nevertheless, either way you look at it, the international community’s failure in Côte d’Ivoire easily surpasses any critique one might make about the legalisms of intervention in Libya. Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron et al. seem to have successfully averted a massacre in Benghazi. In Côte d’Ivoire, the French just covered their asses. We the United States have done nothing. In fact, the House of Representatives even cut our membership dues for the United Nations.Zachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00977280731502216845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post-29619963079862789282011-04-06T08:01:46.722-07:002011-04-06T08:01:46.722-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00977280731502216845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post-18573593538419259902011-04-05T20:10:59.718-07:002011-04-05T20:10:59.718-07:00It seems to me that you argue on the one hand that...It seems to me that you argue on the one hand that the intervention in Cote d'Ivoire has been insufficient because it does not go to the same extent as the intervention in Libya; and on the other hand, you imply that the intervention in Libya goes too far. What, then is the difference between the two situations that one demands interventions ? All I see in your argument is that 1) one involves black Africans (the supreme fetish of liberal interventionism) and one involves Arabs (which reminds us all too much of George W Bush); an 2) one involves people who voted and the other doesn't. At least in Libya, the UN/West have the decency to openly pick a side, despite the talk of protecting only civilians. (To this end I am heartened by the recent bombings by the French and UN of Gbagbo's forces.) But what kind of intervention are you arguing for? For the UN to police a civil war to ensure the compliance of both parties with the Geneva Convention? What could possibly accomplish this--prevent all retaliatory massacres, etc.--but full out occupation? Not that I oppose that--the UN does have a decent track record of stabilizing countries in civil war. But we should be clear on what it entails. We're not so far apart in terms of what we'd like to see happen, but I feel like we couldn't be farther apart in terms of how we justify it. Your drawing of an equivalence between the NF, tainted though it is with atrocity, and Gbabo, your shrill invocation of Jacobins and jackboots, seems irresponsible and naive. There is no moral war, there is only political war. No ethics, but only good politics and bad politics. That goes for interventions as much as for the parties of a civil war.pHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00298844811436630754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post-37614834772224384592011-04-05T20:03:14.808-07:002011-04-05T20:03:14.808-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.pHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00298844811436630754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001870879534452132.post-79237920797078951842011-04-04T10:43:30.626-07:002011-04-04T10:43:30.626-07:00Well, Zac, I would venture to say that the discrep...Well, Zac, I would venture to say that the discrepancies you note are mere extensions of decades (centuries?) old patterns of US diplomacy. In that sense, perhaps we can celebrate that this is not neglect due to (overt) racism; the US has long leveraged military force in a disparate and incoherent fashion. Disparate except if you consider political and economic interests that is.<br /><br />I greatly appreciate your poignant description of the recent history leading up to these events. But I think that I would focus a bit less on the propaganda machinery of the Obama administration. He may have tweaked the language a bit, and spoken in a manner unusually articulate and nuanced for a general audience, but these are just words. It is the actions that matter.<br /><br />As for the actual moral arguments for a 'Responsibility to Protect', I think you well point out the biggest failures. That this was a civil war brewing for more than a decade and the 'Western' world did little during that time. Regardless of intervention at this point, our collective 'conscience' is already 'stained'. The grossest acts of immorality are happening on a daily basis, whether it is coercive trade policies or manipulative 'development' investments. Gbagbo is indeed a real shit bag, but I hate to distract by demonizing the individual when it is the overarching financial/political/legal system that creates these characters time after time. Gbagbo is not an accident. Neither were Mabutu, Gaddafi, Suharto, Pinochet… <br /><br />A humanitarian crisis such as this should necessarily galvanize international interest in support of civilian safety. But the trouble is, when you wait for these sorts of flash points, all of the available solutions are just plain unpalatable. Military occupation, ineffective embargoes, 'enlightened' indifference. All of these options result in a mess, though in this particular scenario I am inclined to agree with your own bent for some more substantive intervention.<br /><br />So let's focus on the moral issues of violence in Côte d'Ivoire now. But also keep in perspective the (perhaps greater) need to work tirelessly, endlessly to prevent these 'massacres' from taking shape every day.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00225506232069719643noreply@blogger.com