Humanitarianism - moral dilemmas of action

[vimothy]

No, not waffle, doubtless very true. In fact these seem more like the practical realities than the philosophical waffle I was aiming at. Is there a moral position that can hold the following simultaneously: the state is organised crime; humanitarian intervention is wrong?

 

[vimothy]

Humphreys' paper is essential reading.

As is Ed Glaeser's paper, The Political Economy of Hate.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Something that springs to mind straight away though is this quote from Mark Duffield's book Global Governance and the New Wars:

The current concern of global governance is to establish a liberal peace on its troubled borders: to resolve conflicts, reconstruct societies and establish functioning market economies as a way to avoid future wars. The ultimate goal of liberal peace is stability. In achieving this aim, liberal peace is different from imperial peace. The latter was based on, or at least aspired to, direct territorial control where populations were ruled through juridicial and bureaucratic means of authority. The imperial power dealt with opposition using physical and juridicial forms of pacification, somethimes in an extreme and violent manner. Liberal peace is different; it is a non-territorial, mutable and networked relation of governance. The aim of the strategic state-non-state complexes that embody global governance is not the direct control of territory. Ideally liberal power is based on the management and regulation of economic, political and social processes. It is power through the control and management of non-territorial systems and networks. [p. 34]​

Interested to hear what you make of this Vim?

EDIT: apologies -- there's no reason why this should just be aimed at Vim; anyone else have annything to say about Duffields analysis?

 

[vimothy]

I'll read it when I get home. Did you see the Weizman article I linked to earlier? I should have posted it in this thread, really.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I'll read it when I get home.

Ain't nothing to read. Its just this quote taken from a book. Am just interested to know if/how this quote relates to your idea of "exploring the differences and similarities between imperial conquest and humanitarian intervention".

[Can add to your reading by sending articles by Duffield if you want ]

Did you see the Weizman article I linked to earlier? I should have posted it in this thread, really.

I'll check it out now.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I quite like the idea of this thread as well, tieing those other threads together - especially the idea of focusing on it in a very practical way. afraid I don't have too much to add - tho I will try to catch up on some of the assigned reading material & perhaps then - just a bump I guess.

Speaking as a mother...

nah but! good on ya then just I totally had you pegged as one of us smarmy dudes? not that ladies can't smarm it up with the best.

 

[vimothy]

It's an interesting quote, and I think it's largely correct, but what I'm thinking about is what happens when we collapse the distinction between liberal and authoritarian (replacing the dichotomy with a scale, if you like). Assume that the state really is organised crime: the difference between humanitarian intervention and imperialism vanish. Is this a reductio ad absurdum of Tilly's thesis? Possibly. But I think there's a seam here that can be mined to build a case for humanitarian intervention, neo-con recidivist that I am.

padraig -- I'm afraid that I am merely another smarmy dude. "Speaking as a mother" is Bill Bailey speak for "talking out of my arse".

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

It's an interesting quote, and I think it's largely correct, but what I'm thinking about is what happens when we collapse the distinction between liberal and authoritarian (replacing the dichotomy with a scale, if you like). Assume that the state really is organised crime: the difference between humanitarian intervention and imperialism vanish. Is this a reductio ad absurdum of Tilly's thesis? Possibly. But I think there's a seam here that can be mined to build a support for humanitarian intervention, neo-con recidivist that I am.

briefly cos I don't want to jump in over my head too quickly - it does seem like an arguing tool, a reductio ad absurdum - but I think the idea of a state as a spectrum & as a continuously de/evolving entity makes a lot of sense, I thought those were some great points Mr. BoShambles made in the Mexico thread. I've also thought for a long time re: "the difference between humanitarian intervention & imperialism" (also in a state's internal affairs - how Mexico deals with its indigenous population for example) - it's all hombres armados isn't it? I think the warning about the absurdity of not giving aid b/c it might have negative consequences is well taken - & I guess you mean support as it applies pragmatically to policy - but really the idea to me that there's some measure by which one intervention could be "suppported" (justified?) & another couldn't I dunno, it's seems pretty absurd.

padraig -- I'm afraid that I am merely another smarmy dude. "Speaking as a mother" is Bill Bailey speak for "talking out of my arse".

nah! there goes my fleeting image of you as whatever the British equivalent of a soccer mom is (maybe it's also a soccer mom?) I had to google Bill Bailey.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

It's an interesting quote, and I think it's largely correct, but what I'm thinking about is what happens when we collapse the distinction between liberal and authoritarian (replacing the dichotomy with a scale, if you like).

This is a progressive move and one i fully support.

Assume that the state really is organised crime: the difference between humanitarian intervention and imperialism vanish. Is this a reductio ad absurdum of Tilly's thesis? Possibly. But I think there's a seam here that can be mined to build a case for humanitarian intervention, neo-con recidivist that I am.

Are humanitarian NGOs to be conceptualised as an extension of 'Western' states? The level of funding they receive from donor govts certainly lends some credibility to this position. Furthermore the militarisation of humanitarianism also suggests that NGOs have been coopted to serve as a component of Western foreign policy.

If this is accepted and we conceptualise of states as organised crime then humanitarian intervention and imperialism become blurred -- both are the projection of power by criminal cartels with little legitimacy.

------

If however, humanitarian NGOs are seen as representing a third sphere - separate from the state and the market - then a case for humanitarian interventions can be built on the basis that they serve to mitigate the worst effects of the organised crime networks (i.e. states) in the most "dysfunctional" parts of the world.

This needs more careful consideration. Beer in pub may help

 

[vimothy]

This has been on the cards for months: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/04/omar-bashir-sudan-president-arrest

 

[scottdisco]

this is not the genocidal campaign of a government at the height of its ideological hubris, as the 1992 jihad against the Nuba was, or coldly determined to secure natural resources, as when it sought to clear the oilfields of southern Sudan of their troublesome inhabitants. This is the routine cruelty of a security cabal, its humanity withered by years in power: it is genocide by force of habit.

Alex de Waal, August 2004

 

[vimothy]

The devil's in the details:

...it seems to me that the PTC’s decision is, from a political perspective, the worst of all possible worlds. Sudan’s response to the arrest warrant will be no less draconian simply because Bashir escaped (for now) being charged with genocide. Yet I think we can expect the rest of the world to lose interest in Darfur (again) now that the PTC has said that the Sudanese government did not pursue a genocidal policy towards the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa.

And make no mistake about it: that is precisely what the PTC is saying. As I have pointed out before, Article 58 of the Rome Statute required the PTC to issue the arrest warrant if there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Bashir was responsible for genocide. Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not clear and convincing evidence. Not even more probable than not. Just “reasonable grounds.” That is an extremely low standard of proof — and the PTC is saying that Moreno-Ocampo failed to meet it. That’s a very strong, and very shocking, conclusion. I disagree with those scholars who believe that Moreno-Ocampo would be unable to prove genocide at trial, such as Alex de Waal, but I readily admit that it’s a debatable point. I find it very difficult to believe, however, that the evidence of genocide — the murder of the male members of the tribes, the sexual violence and slow-death conditions in the IDP camps, etc. — doesn’t even establish reasonable grounds to believe that genocide occurred.

http://opiniojuris.org/2009/03/04/the-arrest-warrant-for-bashir-quick-reactions/

 

[scottdisco]

yeah the first time they went after al-Bashir the likes of de Waal - quite reasonably, i think - saw it as a bit of a missed opportunity, as critics found the indictment less than water-tight.

it's also worth noting, though i will have to go into this at some stage, that de Waal has now recanted, at last fact-check, AFAIK, his usage of the 'g' word, but this doesn't matter - there was a long-running debate with the admirable Eric Reeves that hinged on the above LRB article i quoted for one! - as de Waal himself calls the crimes deliberately perpetrated by the Sudanese regime as crimes against humanity and no less serious than genocide.

very good link there Vim, cheers.

P.S.
the number 16 is one of two services, if you're ever in need of a salutary old-man scoop!

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Are humanitarian NGOs to be conceptualised as an extension of 'Western' states? The level of funding they receive from donor govts certainly lends some credibility to this position. Furthermore the militarisation of humanitarianism also suggests that NGOs have been coopted to serve as a component of Western foreign policy.

If this is accepted and we conceptualise of states as organised crime then humanitarian intervention and imperialism become blurred -- both are the projection of power by criminal cartels with little legitimacy.

------

If however, humanitarian NGOs are seen as representing a third sphere - separate from the state and the market - then a case for humanitarian interventions can be built on the basis that they serve to mitigate the worst effects of the organised crime networks (i.e. states) in the most "dysfunctional" parts of the world.

Any thoughts?

 

[vimothy]

Separate, but perhaps of a similar nature? Why should we expect that NGOs are different -- is there an institutional set-up that might support this supposition?

Also -- this might be the elephant in the room: Give War a Chance, Luttwak

 

[vimothy]

Dunno where to post this, but...

http://www.undispatch.com/node/8089

 

[mistadubalina]

Is there a moral position that can hold the following simultaneously: the state is organised crime; humanitarian intervention is wrong?

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[vimothy]

Er, I don't think so -- I think that there is an answer, and that answer is no.

 

[mistadubalina]

oh...right you are then:slanted:

 

[scottdisco]

Er, I don't think so -- I think that there is an answer, and that answer is no.

i suspect you'd have to be some sort of bizarre scorched earth extreme libertarian type to answer yes to that.

on a lower scale it'd be like a marriage of convenience between, say, the Massachusetts Libertarian Party and ICCwatch.