|
SusanofO -> RE: Imperialism (4/16/2007 3:44:52 AM)
|
**For me if intervention into the workings of another nation's government is ever justified, it would be due to the leader and-or government (and any gangs of violent henchmen) has given free reign to being essentially Sadistically auto-cratic, and the people's voice no longer has any place at all in his/her decision making (if it ever did), and things like mass-genocide are taking place, and over-taxation w/no representaton, raping the national Treasury w/no or little return for the citizens.
**But to classify intervention as Imperialism, I'd think there would have to be a substantial gain economically and-or politically for the nation(s) doing the intervening.
However, in a corrupted government that is hell-bent on taking blatant advantage of its citizens (or out-right slaughtering them) I am sure any kind of intervention can be construed by that corrupt nation as "Imperialism", for their own purposes, of course. Regardless of whether any intervening nation makes any economic or poitical gain for itself, by intervening.
Kim Jong Il, in North Korea is completely out-of-control, IMO as far as being any kind of leader responsible to his people. He rountinely starves them, and it is basically "his way or the high-way" (or prison) if one is a North Korean citizen, and the economy is in shambles, mostly due to his over-the-top personal spending and idiotic economic policies.
But so far, Kim Jong Il has not committed anything close to mass genocide (or at least it hasn't been widely reported if he has). I doubt the US will intervene there, really. I don't think it will happen, it is too politically tricky and he hasn't directly threatened the US in any forceful way (yet).
The massacre taking place in Darfur, Sudan is another story, IMO, and I can't say I'd be very unhappy if the US, or any other nation, (or several) intervened there to make a substantial difference, if possible.
It's not like the citizens of that country are organized, armed or have any resources to be able to defend themselves, really. There are men being killed, women being raped and killed, and children being killed and slaughtered by the hundreds, every day. I think it is an abomination, and if anyone wanted to put a stop to it in any organized fashion, frankly, I'd be all for it.
I am not sure the US will do much about Sudan, in any large, organized way, unfortunately they have little to gain by doing so, politically or economically. But - several national US charitable organizations are reacting to that situation, and so are some international ones.
It can get very expensive for any nation to intervene in these situations, and can cause political turmoil for them, too. But once in a while, I do still think it's probably worth it, just on humanitarian grounds - and I think in Sudan, that is probably the case, although I would never expect anything like "democracy" to result, just maybe giving the citizens some relief economically, and preventing them from being slaughtered, and maybe even then, only temporarily.
I'd never view it as some kind of "political make-over" mission, just relief and protection for the citizens. I'd leave any governmental re-organizing alone, and just do things like deliver aid, and soldiers with guns, to defend them, and basically ignore the powers-that-be - because they don't really know what they are doing anyway, and are very disorganized, (just very well-armed).
If any nation who tries this, makes it very clear they are only aiding the citizens, and not touching the goverment at all, I don't really see a significant political problem resulting. Sure the violence might re-cur (or not totally stop), but maybe not (or make it lessen a lot) if you teach their citizens how to really use those guns, IMO, and possibly make some really sweet economic deal w/their leaders to nix the violence, or use strong economic sanctions on them. Maybe I am being too simplisitc, but I can't really think of another solution.
**Given that the US would have little to gain economically or politically from intervening in Sudan, I can't classify that as Imperialism (maybe just humanitarian nosiness?) As for North Korea, there may be some political gain, but less economic gain, so that might classify as Imperialism, but it's a stretch, I think, to classify it that way.
- Susan
|
|
|
|
