Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the
differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms
interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from
intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the
belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter
the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever
nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the
founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this
idea.
Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and
Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever
their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit
to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people
who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves
by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace
have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a
defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value
to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their
militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though
economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be
addressed the same way.
Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight
forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not
directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions. And serious questions. These questions have
been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each
individual to decide.
Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?
Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective
value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because
the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a
life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do
harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events.
Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat
undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to
others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list,
drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in
government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the
citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s
people.
Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention.
In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be
considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s
government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be
in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention? To ensure the loss of life is kept at a
minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in
the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the
aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to
save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate. In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge
intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating
the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention,
conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force
a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.
What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?
Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small
arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large
weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military
conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all
of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold
value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all
part of the norm for these types of affairs.
The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level
and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation
or state. Each soldier’s life and those
that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related
economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But
each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case
either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one
life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane
and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.
What are the effects of Intervention?
There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that
claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to
Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not
every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same
can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.
The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used
erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining
from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a
belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some
Responsibility
to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should
come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected
nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s
citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their
government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all
voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their
own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not
made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?
Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies
and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It
has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment,
conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of
intervention bound supplies.
However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend
that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not
in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of
wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth,
imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had
no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the
government they live under.
Posts
