Should America send troops to Liberia?

Biffa Bacon

So does anyone see the situation in Liberia as being different from Iraq? Should America militarily intervene in a country in order to bring about peace and protect human rights?

Sparks

Do they have a responsibility to Liberia? Yes.
Should they live up to it? Yes.
Does that mean that they should just invade and take over? No.
Is it like Iraq? No, not really.
Should the US troops be going in wearing Blue Berets? Yes.
Should they be invited to stay the hell out until they sign the ICC so we have at least some mechanism to prosecute those that commit war crimes? Hmmm. That's one that will take some thought. Is it worth the lives it will cost in the short term to protect the lives in the long term? I can't quite bring myself to say yes, but it's damn tempting.

Manach

I feel American troops in Liberia is not a problem so long as they go in under a UN mandate. If they do, hopefully they'd paid a little more heed to the local political nuances, unlike in Somalia.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Should America militarily intervene in a country in order to bring about peace and protect human rights?

No.

Should the US military be part of a UN-sanctioned peace-keeping mission in Liberia in order to bring about peace and protect human rights?

Yes.

There is a difference between dictating international policy and partaking in the enforcement of it.

jc

Biffa Bacon

OK, a few more questions.

If the UNSC does not approve intervention, should America, or any other country, intervene anyway?

If there is UNSC approval, should UN forces be allowed to take offensive military action to end the civil war, or should they only be there as peacekeepers?

If there is UNSC approval for peace "enforcement" but the US declines to participate, is there a moral obligation on any other country to intervene? Should Ireland participate?

Sparks

OK, a few more questions.

Why all the questions Biffa?
:rolleyes:

If the UNSC does not approve intervention, should America, or any other country, intervene anyway?

You mean, should America or any other country violate international law?
No.

If there is UNSC approval, should UN forces be allowed to take offensive military action to end the civil war, or should they only be there as peacekeepers?

I'm rather sure that the UN cannot give approval for such an action. UN Charter, artice 2, section 7:
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll"
So the UN can take military action to stop the fighting - but not to settle the dispute.

If there is UNSC approval for peace "enforcement" but the US declines to participate, is there a moral obligation on any other country to intervene? Should Ireland participate?

From the UN charter, chapter 7, article 43, part 1:
"All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security."

So the US can't decide "oh, we won't help here", and neither can Ireland. And there is a moral and legal obligation on any UN member nation to assist the UN where possible.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If the UNSC does not approve intervention, should America, or any other country, intervene anyway?

Someone should, one possibility would be the OAU / AU, even if Liberia isn't a member.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If there is UNSC approval, should UN forces be allowed to take offensive military action to end the civil war, or should they only be there as peacekeepers?

I don't think any of us are well enough informed on the matter, but if the Military Staff and the Secretary General feel the need to have a robust set of Rules of Engagement, then they should be provided.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If there is UNSC approval for peace "enforcement" but the US declines to participate, is there a moral obligation on any other country to intervene?

Yes. If someone is beating their spouse and the police won't interevene, there is some onus on the community to intervene.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Should Ireland participate?

Yes it should be considered, assuming we won't be committed to the Congo at the time (under discussion).

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Should Ireland participate?

In peace enforcement, oe peace-keeping?

The Irish - if I recall correctly - have taken a position that peace enforcement would be an abrogation of our neutrality, and as a result are not obliged to take part in any such mission.

While I am the first to admit our current state of neutrality is a joke, I would rather see it improved rather than discarded.

So, my answer would be : peace enforcement, no / peace-keeping, yes.

As for what we should do if the US decide to stay out of it....are you trying to fool someone into admitting that we're all really subservient to the US anyway and should just admit it or something? Talk about an obviously loaded set of questions. If you have a point, why not just make it.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
peace enforcement, no

If PE means separating the two waring parties, forcefully if necessary, then why not?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
As for what we should do if the US decide to stay out of it....are you trying to fool someone into admitting that we're all really subservient to the US anyway and should just admit it or something? Talk about an obviously loaded set of questions. If you have a point, why not just make it.

Well what I'm getting at is that opposition to war in Iraq has painted people into a corner. If they reject humanitarian intervention in so obviously deserving a case as Iraq, how can they support it anywhere else in the world? The New World Order seems to be that we must sit back and watch thousands of innocents slaughtered despite our ability to stop it.

Sparks

Except that that's not the way the world is Biffa, as the answers you got should have pointed out.

Victor - if the two sides do not want to stop fighting, how do you stop the fighting without killing everyone?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Except that that's not the way the world is Biffa, as the answers you got should have pointed out.

They didn't, so please help me out here: do you support the notion of military intervention to end gross human rights abuses?

Sparks

You'll have to carefully define "military intervention" for me to answer that question Biffa.
Remember, while it might feel viscereally good to contemplate shooting people who violate human rights, not only would your target list be extensive and include yourself for denying those you shoot of due process, there's also some wisdom which found it's best expression yet during the vietnam conflict:
"Fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity"

Biffa Bacon

You'll have to carefully define "military intervention" for me to answer that question Biffa.

i.e. employing physical force to prevent combatants in another country from attacking civilian populations in that country.

Remember, while it might feel viscereally good to contemplate shooting people who violate human rights, not only would your target list be extensive and include yourself for denying those you shoot of due process…

Enemy combatants have no right to “due process” on the battlefield.

…there's also some wisdom which found it's best expression yet during the vietnam conflict:
"Fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity"

Believe me when I say I see no wisdom in left-wing Vietnam era sloganeering.

Sand

Why cant the UN go in and do it? Why are they asking for the US specifically and not the UN?

US and co have their hands full dealing with Iraq - it would appear time for the EU and the rest of the international community to step up and shoulder some of the burden.

So the US can't decide "oh, we won't help here", and neither can Ireland. And there is a moral and legal obligation on any UN member nation to assist the UN where possible.

The US (or any other state ) cant say "No we wont help there", but they can say "Its not possible us to help there and we wont help there ".

Im not sure how viable peace enforcement is - airstrikes helped put Milosevic back in his box several times but in a messy civil war like Liberia youll have all sides trying to fool the US/UN into attacking their enemies.

Probably the best thing to do imo to immediately ease humanitarian suffering to to declare town A and any point within x kilometers of it as a safe zone for civillians and any milatary in that circle will be destroyed - and youll also have to take similar measures to keep open roads etc for refugees from other areas to travel safely. This is effectively what was done in Kosovo, in that NATO kicked the Serbs out of that area rather than invade Serbia.

Of course there will be cases of mistaken identity, there will be casualties and victory/peace will not break out 3 days after troops land so there will be a lot of doom and gloom to endure first.

Sparks

Biffa,

i.e. employing physical force to prevent combatants in another country from attacking civilian populations in that country.

Excellent, well done. Now you just have to define "physical force" and decide how to tell the "combatants" from the civlians. During a civil war. :rolleyes:

Enemy combatants have no right to “due process” on the battlefield.

If they are armed and in uniform, correct. Otherwise, it's more complicated. Annoying, isn't it?

Believe me when I say I see no wisdom in left-wing Vietnam era sloganeering.

I'm unsurprised. Mind you, I'll attach some value to it, if only because that left-wing Vietnam era sloganeering was what Nixon attibutes as the reason why he backed off from using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. As confirmed by the others in his little gang at the time.

Sand,

Why cant the UN go in and do it? Why are they asking for the US specifically and not the UN?

The US is being specifically mentioned because they founded liberia and then had a long history of exploiting their natural rubber resources, right up till the cold war ended.

US and co have their hands full dealing with Iraq - it would appear time for the EU and the rest of the international community to step up and shoulder some of the burden.

The UN generally asks the most appropriate nation to lead the peacekeeping force in the region. Hence the French in the Congo because of their involvement there, and the US in Liberia.

The US (or any other state ) cant say "No we wont help there", but they can say "Its not possible us to help there and we wont help there ".

No, they can say "cannot", not "will not". There's a significant difference.

Probably the best thing to do imo to immediately ease humanitarian suffering to to declare town A and any point within x kilometers of it as a safe zone for civillians and any milatary in that circle will be destroyed - and youll also have to take similar measures to keep open roads etc for refugees from other areas to travel safely. This is effectively what was done in Kosovo, in that NATO kicked the Serbs out of that area rather than invade Serbia.

We'll just have to hope that the same mistake made in Srebrenica isn't made here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
[B If they reject humanitarian intervention in so obviously deserving a case as Iraq, how can they support it anywhere else in the world? [/B]

Could you produce links with dated articles (i.e. prior to the invasion) that showed this was the reason presented by the US for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?

Could you explain why, in the aftermath of your so-called humanitarian intervention that there has been such a furore over the apparently false justifications for invading on the pretenses of WMD-removal when, in actual fact it was a humanitarian intervention all along?

Could you show that Iraq, like the Liberians, have specifically asked for intervention, and that the president of the nation agreed to step down at a time when the US get in position and ready to assume responsibility for the future of the nation?

Somehow I doubt it, but until you do, your notion that these events are effectively the same is nothing but wishful thinking.

jc

Xhen

Originally posted by Sparks
Do they have a responsibility to Liberia? Yes.
Should they live up to it? Yes.
Does that mean that they should just invade and take over? No.
Is it like Iraq? No, not really.
Should the US troops be going in wearing Blue Berets? Yes.
Should they be invited to stay the hell out until they sign the ICC so we have at least some mechanism to prosecute those that commit war crimes? Hmmm. That's one that will take some thought. Is it worth the lives it will cost in the short term to protect the lives in the long term? I can't quite bring myself to say yes, but it's damn tempting.

You're correct in saying that the situation in Liberia is very different than Iraq but don't get your hopes up about American troops going in under the UN. The UN has a long history of incompetence in military interventions unless the US is running the show (Korea, Gulf War I) and after the mess in Somalia (that was a typically muddled UN mission) there's little interest in having American troops operating under UN authority. The current UN intervention with French troops in the Congo is a perfect example of this as the killing goes on unabated while French troops stand by impotently, buried under bureaucratic restrictions and lack of a well-defined mission.

Don't hold your breath either about the US signing onto the ICC in its present form. It would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague in the US and it's ripe for abuse as a political tool rather than a means to obtain justice. There is significant opposition to it by both major parties in the US so a change in administrations isn't going to make a difference. Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate and there's just no chance of that happening unless it is significantly rewritten to provide the same checks-and-balances and protections that Americans currently have under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
Biffa,

Excellent, well done. Now you just have to define "physical force" and decide how to tell the "combatants" from the civlians. During a civil war. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to get into the minutiae of exactly what constitutes "physical force", I'm just asking if in principle military intervention is justifiable, or is it just better to shrug your shoulders, sit back and watch tens of thousands slaughtered?

You mention Srebrenica, should the peacekeepers there have opened fire on the Serbian forces attacking the town?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Could you produce links with dated articles (i.e. prior to the invasion) that showed this was the reason presented by the US for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?

Could you explain why, in the aftermath of your so-called humanitarian intervention that there has been such a furore over the apparently false justifications for invading on the pretenses of WMD-removal when, in actual fact it was a humanitarian intervention all along?

Could you show that Iraq, like the Liberians, have specifically asked for intervention, and that the president of the nation agreed to step down at a time when the US get in position and ready to assume responsibility for the future of the nation?

Somehow I doubt it, but until you do, your notion that these events are effectively the same is nothing but wishful thinking.

jc

Humanitarian intervention was of course not the primary reason for the war, although it is inconceivable that the US would have invaded a liberal democracy under the same circumstances.

But anyway, what does it matter? If the end result is the overthrow of one of the world's most brutal dictators, why not support that? Or is humanitarian intervention only ideologically acceptable where there are absolutely no national interests at stake?

Sparks

I'm not going to get into the minutiae of exactly what constitutes "physical force", I'm just asking if in principle military intervention is justifiable, or is it just better to shrug your shoulders, sit back and watch tens of thousands slaughtered?

That's a similar question to "so, do you still beat your wife?"
Until you define what mechanisms of physical force you are proposing, an answer to your question would be meaningless.

You mention Srebrenica, should the peacekeepers there have opened fire on the Serbian forces attacking the town?

In short, yes - the UN troops that were being held captive were professional soldiers who knew the risks. But more importantly, they shouldn't have denied access to the safe area to refugees.

Humanitarian intervention was of course not the primary reason for the war

So what was?

although it is inconceivable that the US would have invaded a liberal democracy under the same circumstances.

*cough*chile*cough*
*cough*venezuela_*cough*

But anyway, what does it matter? If the end result is the overthrow of one of the world's most brutal dictators, why not support that?

Because, as shown in Afghanistan, the means and method are as important as the end.
The Geneva convention, the hague convention, the UN charter, and the US justice system, not to mention 10,000 lives - in return for removing one man from power temporarily?
Why would we agree to that?

Or is humanitarian intervention only ideologically acceptable where there are absolutely no national interests at stake?

:rolleyes:
Biffa, humanitarian intervention is by definition intervention without the promotion of national interests.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But anyway, what does it matter? If the end result is the overthrow of one of the world's most brutal dictators, why not support that? Or is humanitarian intervention only ideologically acceptable where there are absolutely no national interests at stake?

So, if it was - say - the Chinese who had invaded Iraq in the name of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and were now busy implementing their particular flavour of communism in the nation in its stead, annexing it as they did (say) with Nepal....would you stand up and say "well done lads - good job - nice humanitarian intervention - got rid of that horrid dictator, and thats all that matters"???

Or perhaps, if the US decided that Iraq was to be the 51st state? Again, I ask - would you be applauding them for the overthrow of one of the world's most brutal dictators and seeing nothing wrong with things?

Or what if the US had used blanket-bombing, or even proscribed weapons to clear out Baghdad - would it still only be about their successful removal of a tyrant?

Or would you like to admit that there are indeed other factors which determine whether or not an intervention is acceptable, and that it is not just about the successful removal of the existing regime?

Of course, this would involve admitting that there are, in fact, lines that have to be drawn to define what is considered "acceptable intervention", and that the base argument here simply devolves to what seems to be your belief that the US is right in all it does in these cases, and others' belief that it isn't, because the respective positions simply involve these lines being drawn in different places.

Because if that's all your arguing, I really don't see anything new here - its just the same old same old.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
Victor - if the two sides do not want to stop fighting, how do you stop the fighting without killing everyone?

To, reluctantly, use the phrase "peace through superior firepower" - it won't work against the big boys, but it did to a certain extent in the latter days in the Bosnian War. It worked in Kosovo. It would have worked in Somalia, if the Americans hadn't flinched (nor treated the city the way they did). It would have worked (and partly did) in South Lebanon, if the Israelies didn't have regional dominance and localised supremacy.

Intervening in a conflict, even a bitter one, isn't impossible and sometimes gives factions an honourable 'out'.

Originally posted by bonkey
So, if it was - say - the Chinese who had invaded Iraq in the name of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and were now busy implementing their particular flavour of communism in the nation in its stead, annexing it as they did (say) with Nepal....

Tibet?

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Tibet?

Yes. Tibet. Damn my decaffeinated brain.

Must remedy that...

jc

Moonpig

as much as Nazi germany had no right to invade poland, America had no right or justification to invade Iraq and any plans to enter another soverign state, should be viewed with great sceptisism