I tend to get into debates with people regarding the use of US military forces and the relations between various other nation-states. In order to allow a very good debate or discussion to take place a few things must be made clear between the two arguing sides:
1) I believe in the "democratic peace theory". I believe that countries that function like democracies diminish the possibilities of war. Democratic states are those that: the regime is held accountable during elections, they recognize basic human rights, have a free and open press, provide basic social services for those who desperately need them, have a functioning police and military force that enforces the stability of that state and the protection of their people, and that function within a capitalistic economic system.
2) "Democratic peace theory" is the belief that conflicts and wars will occur less and less as more and more countries become democratic. Throughout history, very few, if any, wars have taken place between countries that were considered to be democratic. Democracies do not fight each other; they work with each other and realize that hostile actions can have profound consequences on them because they are democratic and function economically by free and open capitalistic markets.
3) Peace, although desired by all, cannot always be attained by diplomacy and non-violent intervention. The stronger hold a leader has on his/her people the harder it will be to change, alter, or remove them from power.
4) The United Nations, though being a "toothless tiger", must re-legitimate itself by punishing those that fail to meet the guidelines of UN Resolutions. They must also become more apt to use military intervention when needed and do so with an overwhelming military presence. Case in point: Iraq after Desert Storm. The UN did nothing but impose economic sanctions to punish Saddam for his failure to comply with UN Resolutions. Those sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq and not Saddam himself. A leader who is not held accountable of his/her actions by the institution of open and free elections cannot be properly punished by economic sanctions. The only way to ensure proper punishment is to either remove that leader via military intervention and/or forcing the leaders of that country to become democratic. Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolutions because he was never held accountable for his actions due to his extremely oppressive control and rule by his Ba'thist Party for 40+ years. Being a democratic state ensures that the will of the people can remove that leader and replace him/her with one who will help them modernize and will do so by following the rules and respecting basic human rights.
5) Restricting basic human rights by any leader should be frowned upon and immediate action should take place. A society without a free and open press, free and open elections, respect for women's rights, freedom of religion, etc. is not a democratic state. Countries that do not fulfill basic human rights will be forced to do so either by threat of military intervention and/or regime change. A countries leader cannot be held accountable and in check by a citizenry that is weakened by lessened human rights.
6) The United States cannot accurately be called a "democracy". We also must critically look at ourselves just as we look at other countries and realize what we need to do to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. Each state must be willing and able to adjust themselves to ensure that we are practicing what we are preaching. There will be no actions that can be seen as hypocritical.
After this is fully understood by the other person, a positive and progressive discussion can now take place.
The unilateral decision to invade Iraq has weakened the United States' reputation across the globe, but more so in the Middle East. This could have and should have been prevented. How?
I argue that the decision to militarily remove Saddam Hussein was justified and very much needed in order to promote the "democratic peace theory". The United States chose to act because the UN chose not to act. Saddam remained in power for 12-13 years because the UN failed to strictly enforce the consequences of non-compliance by Saddam to their numerous UN Resolutions. I don't encourage the use of military force or violence. However, I feel that military action is needed especially when the leader of a particular country continues to mock various international organizations and various other states. Hostile actions by any leader must be looked down upon and handled immediately to prevent worse actions or atrocities.
People think that peace can be obtained by allowing other states to function on their own and that any aggressive military action is preventable. This view, despite sounding great in theory, is not possible in the world in which we now live in. World peace cannot and will not be possible until each and every country practices democracy, promotes and observes basic human rights, and allows its elected government to function under a fair system of checks and balances. Until this happens, war, violence, and military intervention will be a commonality in international affairs.
The United Nations must also regain legitimacy by taking an active role in preventing genocide and oppression on any group of individuals. How can this come about? There are a few things that need to take place:
1) All countries that have a seat at the UN must appropriate a certain amount of soldiers to assist in humanitarian interventions. For example: the current situation in Sudan must be handled immediately and without hesitation. The combined forces will enter the country prepared to imprison or kill any person holding a weapon. After the country has been intervened, the two sides must sit down and work out an agreement to end the violent hostilities within that country and across other borders, if need be. If an agreement cannot be worked out, the countries with intervening forces within Sudan will come up with their own agreement that will be unfair to both sides and will be strictly enforced by the UN's new aggressive military forces. Once an agreement is created and signed by both parties the government of Sudan will be held accountable of enforcing those rules. If the Sudanese government fails to do so, they will be threatened with a military intervention and possible regime change. If they still do not comply, an invasion will take place and a fair and accountable regime will be put into place. A constitution will also need to be created, followed by the creation of a police force and military force.
People will feel that the country should be able to come up with their set of rules and ruling regime. Very true and I agree with this statement very much. However, if a country really wanted to do this they would have done so already. Democracy must spread throughout the world like wildfire and countries must be run by legitimate leaders who are held accountable for their actions by fair and frequent elections. If they fail to even attempt to do any of this, they will be faced with a possible military intervention and regime change. If a state shows signs of progress, but is unable to fulfill expectations on time they can apply for an extension. However, this extension will only be granted once and will only last one year or, if during a leader change, one year after the new leaders first day.
If a country does not want to be interfered upon than this deadline will force them to get along to work out the future of their own country. If they can't get along now, they will never get along anytime in the near future. Participation in this process will be mandatory and given one year to work out the creation of democratic institutions. After one year, each country will be evaluated based upon their progress and participation. Each case will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
2) UN participation should be highly encouraged and heavily promoted. If states can't financially afford some way to contribute to certain causes they can help out in other ways. However, being democratic and capitalist will only hinder some excuses that some countries may make.
3) Every action will be debated in an open forum and must include every member of the UN. Each member must contribute to the discussion in some way and one, two, or three members MAY NOT dominate the discussion in any way. Listening should occur more than speaking.
Unilateral military intervention should be eventually phased out over time and legitimizing the UN and the heavy promotion of global democracy will help make this happen. Violence, although not desired, is and will be needed at some point down the line and no state should opposed to the possibility of this. Diplomacy can happen, but powerful, unchecked leaders make diplomatic solutions less likely.
We will fight global oppression by providing (collectively) computers and internet access to every town across the entire globe. The lessened amounts of money spent on military build-ups for all countries will go towards making information and knowledge much more easily accessible. Oppression, preventable diseases, and ethnic hatred comes with the lack of information and knowledge. The world will only move forward if we actively promote education and the wonders of the internet and technology. This technology will allow immediate notification of any problem taking place. The horrors of Myanmar only continued because of the control of the internet, information, and the oppression of the people. Having worldwide internet access will make situations like this less likely and easier to address immediately. Technology, unlike what George Orwell wrongly predicted, is our best weapon for fighting global ignorance and for promoting education and democracy. Intelligence and education are an oppressing powers kryptonite. The time to act is now.
The world can experience world peace and global participation. This will provide a much more stable planet that can collectively focus on climate change, genocide, natural disasters, and the betterment of humankind. We can one day hold hands with each other knowing that we worked together to fight oppression, preventable diseases, global hunger, climate change, and promote basic human rights in order to make the world a better place for all people. The United States knows that we cannot make this happen on our own and unilateral commitments only weaken our ability to defend ourselves and extend a helping hand elsewhere. Our respect for basic human rights and our example of a democratic government will help lead the way to a brighter future, not only for us, but for the entire planet. Individual success will come with collected success. The future of the world lies within our inner desires for peace and tranquility.
No comments:
Post a Comment