This question could be under debate by the U.N. for days or weeks--well beyond the time that action could have helped. What is the U. N. if it is not a debating, meeting and eating society?
Halatbis - 09:05am on 05/08/2008
This was exactly my take when I read this piece yesterday. Anyone who supports the UN doing this and says the US should not have invaded Iraq should just STFU.
Michael K. - 09:05am on 05/08/2008
I think the moral answer to this question is that the government of Myanmar, not being a legitimate government, but rather a brutal totalitarian regime that has taken over this region without the support of its own people, has no legitimacy.
Hence this is a trick question, framed in terms of the current crisis in that region at least. And that does make it a nice exam question for grad-level polisci students!
Carrick - 09:05am on 05/08/2008
Anyone who supports the UN doing this and says the US should not have invaded Iraq should just STFU.
Michael K.
Would those be the very same people who’ve spent the past 7 years braying about how dumb George W. Bush is?
The key is that neither the military junta that rules Burma nor the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein were consensual. And until the United Nations recognizes that distinction, both the UN and its supporters will remain intellectually flaccid and irrelevant… not at all unlike Jimmy Carter.
Bat One - 09:05am on 05/08/2008
Bat,
Your question is less political and more ethical (read: philosophical). You basically ask whether there can ever exist a sine qua non to exercise our power for the good of others. This being a compulsion rather than a desire because a desire, by definition, does not necessitate action and is therefore not necessarily ethical.
It’s an interesting question. And I think that what’s more interesting is that France, the leading detractor of “American Imperialism,” is essentially calling for something like an imperialism of good will.
I personally see nothing ethically wrong with imperialism. In fact, I can make a decent philosophical argument for the necessity (as a matter of survival) for a stronger society to dominate (either by force or, in our case, but cultural imperialism) the weaker societies around it.
Hairy Polemic - 10:05am on 05/08/2008
Bat,
If the UN is so eager to help for humanitarian reasons what happened to all that help in the Muslim led slaughter in Darfur? There are more dead and siplaced their right now than were caused by this natural disaster.
Toothless hound baying at the moon.
Pilgrim - 10:05am on 05/08/2008
Hairy,
I agree with your distinction between political and ethical. But the legal framework under which the US is organized and operates, and the quasi-legal framework under which the UN exists ("operates" is far too generous!) are both political in nature.
This avoids for the UN the necessity of confronting the question of consenuality I mentioned above, and insures that UN membership is “inclusive”. A dubious and counter-productive goal if ever there was one! It also avoids the unseemly imposition of outside values that so terrifies the morally equivalent Left.
As for imperialism, I think once the question of a consensual government becomes a prerequisite for acceptance, then there is little need for imperialism. The historical record is mixed. Great Britain’s former colonies have all done rather well, but those of France and other Euro-powers rather less so… starting with Africa.
Bat One - 10:05am on 05/08/2008
...what happened to all that help in the Muslim-led slaughter in Darfur?
Pilgrim,
With natural disasters such as the typhoon there is no need to for the sorts of uncomfortable moral judgments about the actions and motives of the perpetrators. Its an easy call.
The slaughter in Darfur, on the other hand, is cast in humanitarian terms precisely because the perps are brutally bigoted Islamists, one of the Left’s pet groups of “victims”.
No self-respecting “One World” leftist is going to castigate anyone who declares themselves opposed to the hideous horrors of American Christian imperialists.
Bat One - 11:05am on 05/08/2008
Sorry about the typos.
That should have been “dead and displaced there” instead of the babble I typed. I shouldn’t try to talk on the phone and make sense on a keyboard at the same time.
Pilgrim - 11:05am on 05/08/2008
This reminded me of this video clip of Scalia I watched last week.
This question could be under debate by the U.N. for days or weeks--well beyond the time that action could have helped. What is the U. N. if it is not a debating, meeting and eating society?
This was exactly my take when I read this piece yesterday. Anyone who supports the UN doing this and says the US should not have invaded Iraq should just STFU.
I think the moral answer to this question is that the government of Myanmar, not being a legitimate government, but rather a brutal totalitarian regime that has taken over this region without the support of its own people, has no legitimacy.
Hence this is a trick question, framed in terms of the current crisis in that region at least. And that does make it a nice exam question for grad-level polisci students!
Michael K.
Would those be the very same people who’ve spent the past 7 years braying about how dumb George W. Bush is?
The key is that neither the military junta that rules Burma nor the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein were consensual. And until the United Nations recognizes that distinction, both the UN and its supporters will remain intellectually flaccid and irrelevant… not at all unlike Jimmy Carter.
Bat,
Your question is less political and more ethical (read: philosophical). You basically ask whether there can ever exist a sine qua non to exercise our power for the good of others. This being a compulsion rather than a desire because a desire, by definition, does not necessitate action and is therefore not necessarily ethical.
It’s an interesting question. And I think that what’s more interesting is that France, the leading detractor of “American Imperialism,” is essentially calling for something like an imperialism of good will.
I personally see nothing ethically wrong with imperialism. In fact, I can make a decent philosophical argument for the necessity (as a matter of survival) for a stronger society to dominate (either by force or, in our case, but cultural imperialism) the weaker societies around it.
Bat,
If the UN is so eager to help for humanitarian reasons what happened to all that help in the Muslim led slaughter in Darfur? There are more dead and siplaced their right now than were caused by this natural disaster.
Toothless hound baying at the moon.
Hairy,
I agree with your distinction between political and ethical. But the legal framework under which the US is organized and operates, and the quasi-legal framework under which the UN exists ("operates" is far too generous!) are both political in nature.
This avoids for the UN the necessity of confronting the question of consenuality I mentioned above, and insures that UN membership is “inclusive”. A dubious and counter-productive goal if ever there was one! It also avoids the unseemly imposition of outside values that so terrifies the morally equivalent Left.
As for imperialism, I think once the question of a consensual government becomes a prerequisite for acceptance, then there is little need for imperialism. The historical record is mixed. Great Britain’s former colonies have all done rather well, but those of France and other Euro-powers rather less so… starting with Africa.
Pilgrim,
With natural disasters such as the typhoon there is no need to for the sorts of uncomfortable moral judgments about the actions and motives of the perpetrators. Its an easy call.
The slaughter in Darfur, on the other hand, is cast in humanitarian terms precisely because the perps are brutally bigoted Islamists, one of the Left’s pet groups of “victims”.
No self-respecting “One World” leftist is going to castigate anyone who declares themselves opposed to the hideous horrors of American Christian imperialists.
Sorry about the typos.
That should have been “dead and displaced there” instead of the babble I typed. I shouldn’t try to talk on the phone and make sense on a keyboard at the same time.
This reminded me of this video clip of Scalia I watched last week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_byBa5uK_I8
Thank God we have men like him on the court.