As the election approaches, it seems clear that the Bush doctrine,
whatever that is, is dead. The thought that either of the next two candidates could consider military preemption or unilateral action on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan and hope to have any support in Congress seems very unlikely. With that in mind, it got me thinking about what sort of regimes America and the west should tolerate in the world,and which, if any, we should actively seek to change, and what force, if any, we could, or should, employ to achieve those ends. this reminded me of an
essay which got the attention of President Reagan and ultimately got the writer, Melanie Kirkpatrick, appointed ambassador to the UN. In it she argues that it is preferable to support conservative autocrats rather than revolutionary ones, because the revolutionary ones are generally more damaging then the regimes they replace. Of course some would argue with that thesis, and with
good reason. The point is that while we would prefer every country to have a stable democracy, such forms of government are notoriously difficult to impose, create or sustain. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "the price of democracy is eternal vigilance". If we agree then that we must tolerate some countries whose democratic standards, and whose records, are less rigid then our own, as is the de facto case at present, then when does a country reach a level of malfeasance that it becomes either duty or good sense to intervene? Strategically many find the idea of a nuclear armed Iran unacceptable. America will not get UN approval to destroy Iran's nuclear program, in light of President Ahmadinejad comments about wiping Israel off the map do we have a duty to ourselves and the world to prevent that country from gaining access to nuclear weapons or at least look the other way if Israel makes an attempt? On the humanitarian side, all things being equal the Chinese will continue to block any meaningful action in Darfur. When does the situation become so dire there, if it hasn't already, that the United States or other countries are justified in taking unilateral action? Or, if the great powers lack the will, as it seems is the case , to do anything about Darfur, an idea has been bandied about over the years, a
targeted mercenary force could be sent to the country and either train the African Union forces or act as the pointy tip of the spear in moving against the militias. Recently Mr. Prince of Blackwater has offered his
services at cost to deal with the problem.
Aid workers and villagers would be equipped with satellite telephones that include Global Positioning Systems. When they call in, the troops would respond.
"I'm so sick of hearing that nothing can be done," he says. "The Janjaweed is a truly unfettered bully. No one has stood up to them. If they were met by a mobile quick reaction force of African Union soldiers, the Janjaweed would quickly learn their habits were not sustainable." And to ensure accountability, he says, the U.S. could send 25 military officers to observe how Blackwater is doing and serve as liaisons.
Of course Darfur isnt the place where chaos or oppression has caused the most deaths. For that we would have to go to the literal "Heart of Darkness", the Congo where,
"3.9 million people had died since 1998, arguably making DR Congo the world’s deadliest crisis since World War II". The country is held in an increasingly fragile quasi ceasefire by a few thousand UN troops.
There is just one reason this war keeps going: Congo is one of the best-endowed countries in the world, with rich reserves of gold, cobalt, zinc, uranium, copper, and yes, oil. The former Belgian colonizers, the current Congolese government, the Rwandan government, the Ugandan government, and all the rebel groups that each party supports are funded and motivated by that wealth.
It seems that absent some stabilizing force in the Congo that these atrocities will continue as long as there is natural wealth to draw those whose interest in plunder far outweighs any thoughts of humanity. Unfortunately there are no shortage of such people in Africa or abroad. The question then for both candidates and citizens is when should the United States intervene in other countries and does it need the justification of the United Nations to do so? And if one's country can not or will not come to the aid of a tortured people does a citizen's obligation consist of simply attempting to convince its government to do otherwise or is there something more that is needed?
This also returns us to essay noted in the beginning of my post. When is it better to support an undemocratic government if it prevents the country from reverting to chaos? When, if ever, is it preferable to encourage an enlightened strongman (or woman) to take control of a failed state rather then let slaughter and malnutrition continue? Of course those who might consider another
White Raj for the Congo would do well to remember that it was another mad European,
King Leopold of Belgium, whose personal administration of the country at the turn of the century formed a basis for Conrad's novel and set a standard for amorality that even the current warlords might struggle to match. Have the West's previous interventions in this and other parts of the world simply created more reasons for us to return? If that is the case then what is our obligation, should we simply abandon these countries to their fate?
