The international community and foreign affairs

[forest]

OK
I was watching a documentary on Rwanda last night on RTE2,
A lot of it criticized the international community for basically doing nothing, in fact worse than nothing, as countries and the UN pulled the troops they had in, out.

At the time various governments got their own citizens out, sending their armies heavily armed to do so.
It was said that if these armies had tackled the various warlords then the genocide would not have happened

Should we have done more there, and should we do more in other places.
In the Sudan at the moment 1.000's are dying and we are standing back doing nothing about it, it doesn't even get reported.

Then there is Iraq, I as many other Europeans protested the war and was highly against Bushs and American foreign policy there.
The country has fallen in to savagery since the fall of Sadam 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of Iraqis have died
Bush is to send 22.000 more troops to try to stop the insurgence is he right to do so, is that a better idea than to leave and let them kill each other. Should the rest of us help, or just criticizes and say I told you so.

Then if we look into history and that "great" example of war world war 2, I believe the Allies were more than justified to attact Hitler and germany, yes they (the allies) killed many, what happend in Dresden was horrible but in the end what was the alternative, let hitler win

Now WW2 is an extreme example but the question I ask is, is war or military intervention every justified.
Should we send in armies, to wage war, if that in the end will save lives, should we go in to Dar fur, Iraq and probably countless other places and help. Is it justified.

is it right to sit back and do nothing or so what we are so good at going, go in after the conflict has happened.
In a lot of cases we could stop these massacres in a matter of days or is going in a worst idea

[Rocky]

Yes the International community should get involved in internal conflicts within countries, although not in them all. In cases like Rwanda and Sudan it is fairly simple, these are clear cases of genocide and there is no doubt that a large UN peacekeeping force with a strong mandate would save hundreds of thousands of lives. An example of the success a UN peacekeeping force could have is in Rwanda in 94, near the end of that conflict the French sent a force into Southern Rwanda and there is no doubt that they saved a lot of lives. There is also no doubt that the International community saved a lot of lives in Bosnia and Kosovo when they eventually intervened and they could have saved more. Had the air strikes that the UN force in Srebrenica called for four times, have been allowed then there is no doubt that that massacre never would have happened and once again thousands of lives could have been saved. Now I know NATO killed people in both these conflicts by bombing Belgrade and other like actions, however they saved a lot of lives by doing so. In the case of Bosnia the conflict ended less then a month after the International community got their act together. How many lives did they save?

The UN has done a lot of good work by sending forces in after a conflict. The best examples are in the DRC, Liberia and Lebanon, which UN forces has helped save thousands of lives. Their big problem is they wait until after the conflict is over, although in all three of these cases I doubt they could have done much good while the conflict was going on because they were fairly conventional civil wars and they probably would have got struck in the middle. The UN and the International community’s current lack of action with regard Somalia truly is sickening and this is a fairly clear cut case. Somalia is begging the International Community for help and a there is a strong chance that large peacekeeping force would help create a stable Somalia. However the West and the UN is leaving it completely up to the AU and right now only Uganda, Malawi and Nigeria have offered to sent troops and none of these countries are the most stable themselves. Now I know Richer countries have a lot of troops elsewhere, but a large peacekeeping force to Somalia right now is vital for the country.

For the reasons listed above we shouldn’t sit back and do nothing, but as long as people oppose their country get involved in a conflict then countries will continue to do that. It is easier to stay out of conflict then get involved. Clinton killed more people in Rwanda, then Bush has in Iraq. Yet there isn’t a word against what Clinton did and Bush opinion ratings have collapsed and there are marches against what him. Is it any surprise that other countries aren’t jumping to send their troops into Sudan and Somalia? Now there is no doubt that Iraq is a disaster; however it is no more of a disaster then Sudan, where potentially the same number of people has died in the same period, judging by what number you choose to believe. However no one cares about Sudan.

Now there is no simple rule, the International community shouldn’t get involved in every conflict in the world or try to make every country a democracy or anything like that. However it should get involved in preventing genocides and it should get involved in stabilising countries after a long period of war and maybe it should get involved in taking out really terrible regimes like Afghanistan.

Finally on one question you ask, I wouldn't put any pressure on other countries to get involved in Iraq. Somalia in particular needs troops more then Iraq right now, which already has plenty.

[Sidewinder]

Finally on one question you ask, I wouldn't put any pressure on other countries to get involved in Iraq. Somalia in particular needs troops more then Iraq right now, which already has plenty.

Nowhere near enough troops, and of the wrong kind...

If we take the north, the British had around 15000 troops in place. Iraq has 17 times the population, suggesting a minimum pro-rata requirement of 225,000 troops. At present the US and UK between them have about 150,000 troops in place (133,000 US, 7000 UK, plus small contingents form other countries)......and in the six counties only maybe 20% of the population were actively hostile to the British, and 55% actively supported them. It's the other way round in Iraq!

A truly international force (including countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan...and plenty of netural forces from Asia, Africa and S America) of 300,000+, alongside a concerted diplomatic effort, and international financing for rebuilding, is the only way to clean up Iraq now. The US and UK will eventually have to swallow their pride and take a back seat. They are the major part of the problem, not the solution.

On the wider point of when to intervene in internal conflicts, it is a tough one. Clear-cut genocide cases like Rwanda, Srebenica and Darfur are relatively rare and even in those cases the international response has been poor. In cases like the war in the Congo, where nearly 4 million people have died, the international response is to completely ignore the situation and pretend it isn't happening. The structure of the UN with the 5 permanent vetoes doesn't help either. In a lot of cases, one side or another in these wars are being backed, armed and financed by one or more of the Big 5. There are still plenty of murderous dictators cheerfully allowed to continue killing their own citizens because they are seen as "friendly" to the West, or to Russia or China (the Chinese are the ones blocking any move on Darfur). We should be at least aware of the hypocrisy and sheer self-serving guff peddled by many "enlightened" and "civilised" Governments who are up to their necks in propping up nasty regimes all over the world.

Geopolitics is a dirty game indeed. Unfortunately I don't see it getting any better until 19th century notions of Empire, spheres of influence, and power projection become discredited world-wide. There's also the twin problems of energy supply and the requirements of the industrialised countries for the raw materials provided by the poorer countries. Odious dictators are put in place in order to ensure security of supply of oil and commodities. The lives of millions are sacrificed to keep the consumers at home fat and happy. It really is as simple as that.

Given the rotten state of global politics, it's actually something of a miracle that peacekeeping missions to Lebanon, Eritrea or Liberia ever got off the ground in the first place, and were allowed to have any success.

[primalstatus]

Indifference dominates western foreign policy because to act otherwise would make us feel too awkward and uncomfortable; trying to affect change sounds too much like hard work for our politicians.

I agree that States that can intervene should, but I am firmly against any form of military intervention. What is America trying to prove in Iraq? That if they throw enough personnel at the insurgents they might run out of ammunition? I can't see how sending thousands of troops to their death can possibly solve anything. Surely the international community can collectively present I more viable solution...are we so paralysed by our own ineptitude that we are willing to stand by and watch?

Now WW2 is an extreme example but the question I ask is, is war or military intervention ever justified.

Absolutely.

Should we send in armies, to wage war, if that in the end will save lives

Maybe Self-interest must be considered. It might not be in 'our' (Europe's?) interest to interfere in African conflicts.

should we go in to Darfur...

Probably.

Iraq and probably countless other places and help.

They do need help. But the EU citizenry seem utterly pacifist, and would reject such actions, I'd say.

is it right to sit back and do nothing or so what we are so good at going, go in after the conflict has happened.
In a lot of cases we could stop these massacres in a matter of days or is going in a worst idea

The EU lacks a true military capacity. To do what you propose, I think a proper EU Army (not the RRF) would be needed.

One other point, and you mightn't agree with this, but your outlook is almost neoconservative (in its idealistic form)!