Has the Iraq debacle made the world 'scared to help'?

Madeleine Albright seems to think so. ;) In this interesting article, she suggests that the results of Iraq have made the international community shy away from violating another countries sovereignty, even for humanitarian reasons- the current case in point being Burma:-

"The Burmese Government's criminally neglectful response to last month's cyclone, and the world's response to that response, illustrate three grim realities today: totalitarian governments are alive and well; their neighbours are reluctant to pressure them to change; and the notion of national sovereignty as sacred is gaining ground, helped in no small part by the disastrous results of the American invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, many of the world's necessary interventions in the decade before the invasion - in places like Haiti and the Balkans - would seem impossible in today's climate....

The concept of national sovereignty as an inviolable and overriding principle of global law is once again gaining ground. Many diplomats and foreign policy experts had hoped that the fall of the Berlin Wall would lead to the creation of an integrated world system free from spheres of influence, in which the wounds created by colonial and Cold War empires would heal.

In such a world, the international community would recognise a responsibility to override sovereignty in emergency situations - to prevent ethnic cleansing or genocide, arrest war criminals, restore democracy or provide disaster relief when national governments were either unable or unwilling to do so.

During the 1990s, certain precedents were created. The administration of George Bush snr intervened to prevent famine in Somalia and to aid Kurds in northern Iraq; the Clinton administration returned an elected leader to power in Haiti; NATO ended the war in Bosnia and stopped Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo; the British halted a civil war in Sierra Leone; and the United Nations authorised lifesaving missions in East Timor and elsewhere.

These actions were not steps towards a world government. They did reflect the view that the international system exists to advance certain core values, including development, justice and respect for human rights.

In this view, sovereignty is still a central consideration, but cases may arise in which there is a responsibility to intervene - through sanctions or, in extreme cases, by force - to save lives.

Governments in the developing world are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even if the human costs are high.

Thus, Burma's leaders have been shielded from the repercussions of their outrageous actions.

Sudan has dictated the terms of multinational operations inside Darfur.

The Government of Zimbabwe may yet steal a presidential election.

Political leaders in Pakistan have told the Bush Administration to back off, despite the growth of al-Qaeda.

African leaders (understandably, perhaps) have said no to the creation of a regional American military command.

And despite efforts to enshrine the legal doctrine of a "responsibility to protect", the concept of humanitarian intervention has lost momentum."

Madeleine Albright was the United States secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.

Since Iraq, the world is scared to help - Opinion - smh.com.au

Can we partly blame the Bush administration for our pussy footed attempts to help the Burmese typhoon victims too? :rolleyes:

With the possible election of Obama as President, we will see American intervention abroad subside noticeably. Many who now loudly complain about America's adventurism will then be lamenting America's departure from needed interventions and whining about it.

I think the US may go along with UN votes in various areas, but will no longer send troops and direct assistance, unless it's in a critical national interest.

Look for a new role of semi-isolationism by America. However, even Obama will not be able to pull out of Iraq so quickly.

There is somewhat of a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' conundrum about an international policing role, be it carried out by the US or UN or NATO. I think that US diplomatic action to play ball with the UN will be mainly positive, but it still feeds into the same conumdrum. And, of course, the UN is far from perfect.

It still leaves the question hanging though- the Iraqi intervention can be viewed in many ways, but is pretty much seen as a failure. Has this perceived failure of intervention made the international community lose it's collective balls?

Is this good, or bad?

^I don't think there was ever a 'collective' set of balls by the 'international community,' if by this you mean the members of the Security Council basically.

Bush had is 'coalition of the willing' which lasted a bit until we found out his intel was wrong and we were lied to. Apart from that, on questions like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, I think we will continue to see polarization involving China, Russia and the US. The UK might still get behind the US, together with France and Germany on occasion, but I think the days of US-led coalitions are over for 4 or 8 years. That's a good thing.

The US needs to get its house in order.

The intervention in Iraq was never a collective effort. The international community never had any collective balls....

With the election of McCain as yank president, US will once again lead the world. :)

^ Blimey, I hope they offer you a Green card Brit. :rolleyes:

^^ Afraid you are right, but there will never be another like Iraq, and as far as I can see it is fior the best, if another country gets in trouble then it is just tough shit and they can get their selves out of any jam they get in.
I will vote again anything that comes up for the USA to help anyone. The rest of the world can go fuck themselves, and always remember the sorry piss in the pants pussy bastards like Ray Carey and Sabang and the rest of you crying pricks when ever your country is in a hard spot... Fuck off.

Sorry to piss on your parade BG, but we're just doing fine for ourselves. ;)

Quite a few of our ignoble citizens are feeling a bit sorry for your lot lately.

I think any western country that attempts to form a coalition, for anything, will remember Iraq.

Pretty tough to implement any sort of action (against Myanmar, for example) when half of the countries who buy into it initially, quit after a few months. Nobody likes to be left holding the bag.

Fuck her. She's piling on and pushing along with the rest because of the upcoming election. Senator Chuck Schumer was reported by NPR as saying the Congress will continue to introduce bills designed to embarrass McCain. Fuck all of them for that too. Wasting the people's time and money playing politics. Schumer should be slapped in the back of the head and asked what's the mater with him.

The Burmese generals are their own embarrassment. They are criminals and a former Secty of State shouldn't try and defect attention from it. What is she afraid of? The generals will force even more of their people to die because they have been embarrassed further?

This leftist self-criticism flagellation is misunderstood by people. They wind up thinking the USA is at fault for everything. I guess it plays right into the hands of the "no borders no nations" leftists in the USA

When will the EU insist the generals be brought to the Hague?

Quote:

---

When will the EU insist the generals be brought to the Hague?

---

Um, never. The EU is spiraling down the shitter as we speak, back to the drawing board ... again.

A dysfunctional band of villages that never got along who thought they might somehow form a gang to consolidate efforts and compete better with those countries whose citizens' heritage isn't based on hate, distrust and contempt of all its neighbors. They're busy trying to pound a square peg into a round hole at the moment and might reach some sort of watered-down consensus by 2150.

Whilst I have to agree that the EU does come across as a group of squabbling grannies quite often, going down the shitter? Well hardly. :rolleyes:

Not meaning to rub it in, but collectively the EU enjoys some pretty impressive quality of life standards- and the benefits for the more recent members in the old eastern bloc are huge.

Of course I'm exaggerating a bit ... :) But the EU is struggling to define itself. The infighting doesn't help. It still doesn't speak with one voice and opinions of individual member nations are still listened to more closely than the EU.

Why would you be rubbing it in? Thought you were Australian? :rolleyes:

Yeh, the Paddies have just thrown a spanner in the works too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texpat

Why would you be rubbing it in? Thought you were Australian?

---

I don't think he understands who or what he actually is from the sounds he makes sometimes.

I would venture to say that the same kind of things were being said back in the '70's following the US departure from Vietnam.

The international community has had jell-o for a backbone long before Iraq. Take a look at the horrors that have been allowed to be perpetrated in many parts of Afrcia before Iraq - did the international community do much more than talk about it and send a few plane loads of food?

With or without what has gone down in Iraq the international community will continue to talk a lot and do very little for those that have the least. All Iraq does is give some of the wankers an excuse for their unwillingness to step up to the plate and do anything but sit around picking their collective noses talking things over while people around the world suffer.

Anyone that thinks the response from the international community would have been any different in Burma if Iraq had never taken place is simply delusional. Just look at how things were before Iraq - look at how the international community has pretty much always been content to talk and sit on their hands rather than do much of anything meaningful - Iraq has changed nothing on this front.

I say again all Iraq has done is give the wankers an excuse to continue to do nothing.



Shall we all hold hands and sing kumbaya now?

^ Ahem :rolleyes: -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabang

During the 1990s, certain precedents were created. The administration of George Bush snr intervened to prevent famine in Somalia and to aid Kurds in northern Iraq; the Clinton administration returned an elected leader to power in Haiti; NATO ended the war in Bosnia and stopped Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of terror in Kosovo; the British halted a civil war in Sierra Leone; and the United Nations authorised lifesaving missions in East Timor and elsewhere.

---

Sure argue no international backbone in spite of the above, but look how the rigid backbone exhibited by those neo-cons provided humanitarian relief to the poor, suffering people of Iraq? :rofl: Madeleine Albright makes a valid, though debatable point. It seems to me fairly shallow to dismiss it just because you vote Republican, or defend the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackgang

Quote: Originally Posted by Texpat Why would you be rubbing it in? Thought you were Australian?

I don't think he understands who or what he actually is from the sounds he makes sometimes.

---

Born in UK, grew up in Oz, worked in HK & US, live in Thailand.
Hell, even my accent is confused. :)

If I must rub it in, the point I was making is that much of the EU uniformly ranks above the USA in quality of life surveys. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bugs

I say again all Iraq has done is give the wankers an excuse to continue to do nothing.

---

Madeleine basically agrees, except she's saying it's given them even more of an excuse.