The exhibit on the DC riots was very eye-opening to me. The photos of children living in the alleys of DC were awful. It's sad and unacceptable that that level of destitution existed in the US so recently.
After our discussion I think most of us can agree that world politics is nearly impossible to define. As a general rule of thumb, I’d say world politics is any event, issue, etc that involves two different states, ideologies, etc. Vague, I know. One of us said it best (I can’t remember who, sorry), that “you can’t define something as world politics until after it’s happened.”
One thing that kind of confused me was how so many people seemed to be fans of working for a collective “goal of humanity,” as opposed to working just for a state’s self-interest. These same people also seemed to feel that Palestine was justified in electing Hamas because they would take care of their immediate needs (electricity, plumbing, what have you). If Palestine was working towards a collective goal (which would by default include Israel), they probably wouldn’t have elected Hamas.
Though obviously I’m no fan of Hamas, I don’t have a problem with this. I’m all for states working for self-interest. For example, I’m not a huge fan of foreign aid. If you’re helping a nation that would be beneficial to you in the future, great. But not much seems to ever get done with the aid we give and there are certainly enough problems here at home for which we could use some money. Also, oftentimes it is the same people who condemn the US for being “world police” who also advocate the US sending troops into Sudan. Is an occupation only justified if the occupiers aren’t getting anything out of it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with your point about U.S. military intervention. While the U.S. presence in Iraq is questionable, it seems that a specific atrocity has to occur before U.S. troops can be deployed. I suppose, however, that these people also advocate a greater military presence of the U.N., with the U.S. forming a bulk of the force. It worked in the Balkans, but the U.N. generally needs to act faster in such situations.
The issue of whether or not foreign aid should be given is simple, to me.
First, I ask: do we have resources in surplus of our need?
Second, I ask: do others have resources in deficit of their need?
All of humanity should try to aid their fellow man whenever doing so does not cause self-injury.
Antonio: Yes. And a "specific atrocity" is pretty easy to find these days. Compare Iraq and Sudan: both have atrocities taking place. Stabilizing Iraq would benefit the US. Stabilizing Sudan wouldn't influence the US too much. Since (regardless of how it was executed) basically everyone thinks entering Iraq was unjustified, I guess my question is, are we only justified in intervening in a conflict when there is no direct benefit for us (when it only benefits a "goal of humanity")?
Nadler: Why should we help another nation for nothing in return? A government doesn't have a feel-good conscience. If a nation was wealthy and doing well, private organizations who wanted to be charitable would do so with their own money on their own time (Doctors Without Borders, etc) I just feel that it's wasteful for a government to do so.
I think the question here is... what if it was you? What if you and your family were the people that needed help? Would it still be about a nation's self-interest? Or would it just be about helping fellow humanity through hardship? I tend to think, maybe erroneously, that humans are compassionate. Even though we do have strong self-preservation instincts, we also have the instinct to help others. I hope that if one of us saw a car accident that we would pull over to the side of the road and help or at least call the police. Especially when you are healthy (or a country is prosperous), I would expect that most people would stop to help out someone less fortunate. It's not human nature to stand by while others are in need... or at least I like to think it's not.
Post a Comment