WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 (UPI) -- Justification of the U.S. military invasion of Iraq remains a highly debatable if not controversial topic in much of the world. Yet an entire collection of failed states lends one to question if outside military intervention by former colonial rulers -- or by the world's sole remaining superpower -- might not at times prove beneficial, even outright desirable.
Time and again, devastating ethnic wars have drawn former imperial powers back to police their onetime domains to quell violence and prevent further bloodshed often brought about by despotic megalomaniac dictators.
Forget Iraq for the moment, if you will. Timor Leste, Madagascar, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast
Les bottes ugg, Solomon Islands and most recently Liberia, to name but a few
Ugg stiefel, are classic textbook studies of failed states that necessitated outside Western intervention to put a stop to continuing bloodshed and turmoil.
There is, of course, the moral issue as to when Western powers should take it upon themselves to intervene in the developing world on humanitarian grounds. And at what point does neo-imperialism creep in under the cover of compassion in search of self-fulfilling neo-colonial gains? What are the governing differences, say, between U.S. forces marching into Iraq to forcefully impose regime change -- while securing unlimited supplies of cheap oil - vs. British or French forces deploying in Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast, with the aim of stopping years of carnage, all while ensuring economic trading advantages for themselves?
It begs to ask the question why the United States saw it fit to intervene in Kuwait following Iraq's invasion of the oil-rich emirate in 1990, but chose not to intercede in Rwanda when Hutus were massacring Tutsis and other Hutus by the hundreds of thousands in 1994?
The Rwandan genocide has been labeled one of history's worst. Within a four-month period the atrocities claimed nearly a million lives. Additionally, an estimated 1.3 million people were displaced by the fighting, more than 2 million fled to neighboring states, and practically the entire country collapsed as a result. Kuwait's population is just over 2 million, compared to Rwanda's 7 million. Critics said the difference was that Rwanda, of course, had no oil.
Likewise, neither the United States, Britain, nor any of the world's former colonizers ever sought to intervene in Sudan, where the world's longest-running civil war has already claimed close to 2 millions lives and affected millions more, while creating one of Africa's worst refugee problem.
According to human rights groups, the government in Khartoum rules with no regard for human rights. It forces families from their homes, slaughters innocents, and enslaves women and children. Yet, you hear no murmurs of discontent emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue, the Pentagon or Foggy Bottom to denounce slave trading in the 21st century.
A couple of years ago, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair hoped to put his name to a declaration justifying armed intervention against failing states on the basis that the international community has a right to intervene. Blair's initiative, however, failed, after it was blocked by several countries -- among them Germany -- who feared such a declaration would alter international sovereignty and shake the new world order.
Yet today's new world order is far from orderly. Many of Europe's former colonies have failed as states. Of the world's 34 most impoverished nations
ugg boots sale, 30 are from sub-Saharan Africa and more than a few have lived through fratricidal wars that necessitated outside military intervention. Some more than once.
Intervention by Western powers in their former colonies may be justified on two counts. First, because it was the shortfalls of colonialism that developed many of the corrupt regimes that replaced the Western powers. The transition of power should have been better planned. Although in fairness to the colonizers, the former colonies can just as easily be blamed for the hastiness in which their independence was sought, often when an experienced ruling cadre was far from ready to assume the mantle of leadership.
And second, on simple humanitarian grounds, the developed world should not stand idly by while preventable turmoil wrecks havoc in the developing world.
But what about those rare countries in the developing world that have never been colonized? The two worst-off countries in Africa are Ethiopia and Liberia -- ironically
ugg �� paris, the only two countries on the continent to have escaped colonization. Ethiopia was briefly occupied -- thought not colonized -- by the Italians from 1936-41 and Liberia, Africa's first republic, was founded in 1822. Liberia was never a colony but was founded by freed American slaves, which would explain why in the absence of a former colonial ruler it has turned to the United States for assistance in its civil war.
Unlike the controversial campaign in Iraq, U.S. military intervention in Liberia has been requested and welcomed by most of the people of that war-torn country and by its neighbors, both wishing to put an end to more than a decade of civil strife. But would such unilateral actions, compiled with recent military engagements in other parts of the world, not further set the United States on the way to cementing itself in the role of a neo-imperial power?
In the past, it was the United Nations that would have been called upon to resolve such a crisis, as was often the case, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. But the U.N.'s failure in preventing a U.S. war on Iraq has weakened the world body to the point of near irrelevance when it comes to resolving major conflicts, leaving the stage to the United States and former colonizing powers.
More recently, unilateral armed intervention appears to have become the favored form of conflict resolution, (as in Afghanistan and Iraq) particularly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on America, a date that altered the Bush administration's foreign policy thinking.
France's President Jacques Chirac, who strongly opposed unilateral intervention in Iraq, believes "the notion of being the world's policemen belongs to the past."
This philosophy, however, did not prevent France from engaging its troops in the Ivory Coast to quell a civil war in that country.
One of the major differences between yesteryear's empires and today's neo-imperialists is that occasional setbacks and heavy casualties suffered in colonial wars would not deter the colonial powers from their objectives, particularly given that often
ugg billig, news of defeat took months to reach home. The opposite is true in today's society. Once the body bags start appearing on the front pages of morning newspapers, the 6 o'clock news and Web pages, pressure for disengagement will increase, demanding immediate policy changes back home.
Until recently, U.S. public opinion remained largely complacent over the U.S. military engagement in Iraq. The early successes of the war, the rapid disintegration of the Iraqi army and the quick fall of Baghdad -- all within three short weeks -- was just right to satisfy the electorate back home, and even silence some who initially opposed going to war. But as guerrilla attacks continue to increase, claiming on average one American casualty a day, that attitude is starting to change. Even early supporters of the war are beginning to have second thoughts, including some in the Bush administration.
Many analysts agree a major attack against American forces in Iraq, along the lines of the Beirut Marine barracks attack in 1983 that killed 241 U.S. servicemen, will greatly influence domestic public opinion.
For the first time since the war, public support for Bush has sharply dropped as concerns over casualties rose and newly released documents showed the president used falsified documents to build his case to launch the war.
Gen. Tommy Franks who was chief of the U.S. Central Command, and as such in charge of directing operations in the Middle East, predicted to Congress American troops would possibly need to remain in Iraq for four more years. In the almost three years since, the United States has been in Iraq, the military have suffered about 2,000 casualties. At that rate, and assuming the violence does not increase, we can expect another 2,000 to 3,000 more American service personnel to be killed.
But that is also the price of neo-imperialism. The other price is, of course, a financial one. The cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq amounts to roughly $100,000 every 44 seconds, according to costofwar.com, an Internet Web site set up by anti-war activists, but who based their conservative figures on Pentagon estimates.
A simple solution to foreign military involvement, if one is to avoid the neo-imperialist label, would be to strengthen cooperation at the international level. Involvement by the United Nations and greater reliance on NATO would be one possible solution. Though NATO is reluctant to get involved in any expedition that might demand military engagement with an enemy.
Another option -- and one which would expedite matters -- would be the development of a task force run by the United States and the former colonizers -- in most cases, Britain and France and to a lesser degree Spain and Portugal. Such a move would perhaps entice "third-parties," some countries that would otherwise shy away
Ugg sale, to participate in peacekeeping mission.
India, for example, itself a former British colony, refused to partake in peacekeeping operations in Iraq unless under the banner of the United Nations, despite the lure of lucrative multimillion dollar business contracts.
A pre-formed rapid-reaction force authorized by the U.N. to rapidly intervene in conflict zone with a mandate to stop the fighting should offer positive results.
--
(Comments may be sent to
[email protected].)
