Now that the government has been ousted in Ukraine, Putin is very alarmed--having started miliatry exercises to the north of Crimea, a region earlier ceded to Ukraine, as a warning not only to the Ukranian rebels, but to the rest of the world as well--should any other nation dare to support Ukraine with military aid. Some might think it is the 'responsibility' of Europe to nuture democracy and support former Soviet satellite states in their struggles for equitable and representative governments.
There are other more dramatic humanitarian crises happening currently, such as Syria, where our lack of intervention has only encouraged the continued slaughter of innocent civilians. The government of Syria has been delaying the destruction of their chemical weapons, promised by President Bashar al-Assad for the end of February.
The old criteria for American intervention in foreign conflicts, moral and humanitarian, and maintenance of our prestige as a defender and midwife to world democracy, seem to be in question. What do you think our role in the world should be? Should we continue being the world's protector? We have already seen the refusal of other Western countries to deal with crises in Rwanda and Kosovo. If we do not take action, who will? Do you think Obama's 'policy of restraint' is a wise one for our country right now? What do you think of the costs of intervention, both monetary and human?
NYT Article
NYT Syria Article
Russian/Crimea Article
Bloomberg Article
4 comments:
I don't know the correct answer to this subject matter. Actually, I don't even have my own fully formed opinion. My initial reaction is that the U.S. should not be the "world's policeman" or anything of the sort, since it isn't always one hundred percent conducive to achieving peace in other nations or even maintaining stability within America. But on the other hand, situations like the Rwandan Genocide that Bailey brings up are an extremely unsettling reminder of the idea that overcautious prevention is often better than restraint or downright negligence. It would be tragic to look at the events in Ukraine ten years from now and think, "If the United States had intervened earlier, this might not have happened."
I think it's a great idea for us to just stay out of it. Honestly, I don't know why we think it's our job to go play superman and try to solve everyone's problems. Where has that gotten us? You can't save the world, and just I feel like we piss people off walking around with our "holier-than-thou" attitude. Maybe, they don't want our help. Whooooaa imagine that.
I think Alexa's connection to Rwanda was an important point to make and and how not intervening might be devastating in the future. However, I think it's smart and expected of the President to hold back and monitor the situation before taking any drastic action. I am not surprised that Obama has decided to stand back - and I certainly don't think the public would be very happy if he took any significant action. Intervention is not always the answer and the whole crusade for democracy seems to be slowing down dramatically. Personally, I think democracy can only come about when the people of the country are certain that they want change in their government - shoving our political beliefs onto other nation's is never an effective policy.
I agree with Susan - I think that history has demonstrated that democracy originating from within a country's own people, not foreign governments and powers (like the U.S.), is most ideal. Nowadays, public opinion seems strongly opposed to U.S. intervention in foreign conflicts, although at the same time, as Bailey's question poses, it seems like no one but the U.S. is willing to take action in many cases.
Is it worse to be ignorant of (or apathetic toward?) the situation, as seemed to be the case in Rwanda, or to try to intervene and promote democracy in a nation and fail, as in Vietnam? I feel that the U.S.'s attempts to instate democracies, or at least better governments, in foreign countries and its subsequent failures to do so in a way that is perceived as acceptable and "good" by those involved have only fueled further criticism of it.
Post a Comment