A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 23, 2004Legalize InterventionI usually consider British leftist George Monbiot to be an idiot, but his latest column arguing for an international legal framework for intervention is worth reading.
Set aside the jab at President Bush. Monbiot is, surprisingly, rejecting the traditional leftist argument that intervention in small countries by the big powers is always bad. The movement against "imperialism" and for decolonization has been steady in the postwar period. But now we see that some of these independent states have failed, and there ought to be a mechanism for putting them into receivership. Posted by rickheller at March 23, 2004 09:53 PM Comments
Nope, Monbiot is still an idiot. Predicating it on the approval of "the overwhelming majority of all the world's states" is sheer idiocy, giving a practical veto to those same despotic states where intervention is needed. Moreover, if the tests were all that rigorous, there ought to be no need to put it to a vote. It's just an escape clause so that even in clear cases of the worst excesses imaginable, such as genocide, there's one more way to tie the hands of any states wanting to intervene. Posted by: Joshua at March 24, 2004 08:05 AMI don't endorse everything in the column. I'm just using it as a starting point. Posted by: rickheller at March 24, 2004 08:47 AMMonbiot makes some good points. His first paragraph in particular neatly summarizes the conundrum. But he loses me when he talks about giving binding final say to an international body. The track record of such organizations is simply too poor to even consider signing away sovereignty. What strikes me as a promising development is something that I meant to post about: the beginnings of a democratic caucus at the UN. There is a possibility that such a thing could develop over time to render the UN moot. I'll try to find a link to the story about this I read yesterday. One of the biggest problems with UN-style international organizations is that democracies and tinhorn dictatorships each get one vote, Once upon a time, the small number of democracies made this a necessary compromise. But now, and going forward, maybe it's not. Maybe democracies get one vote and dictatorships get some lovely parting gifts. Posted by: bk at March 24, 2004 09:57 AMMonbiot has recognized the delimna but proposes a silly solution as well explained in the first comment above. While I like the idea of a Democratic caucus in the UN, I feel that a coalition of the willing lead typically by the US will be required to free these oppressed people. Each case will have to be sold on its own merits, both to the US voters and the coalition goverments. Posted by: tallan at March 24, 2004 02:54 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
