[Peace-discuss] Refutation of "humanitarian intervention"

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Chomsky, from about ten years ago.]

Actually, on humanitarian intervention in general, I guess my view is not unlike 
the view that was attributed to Gandhi, accurately or not, when he was 
supposedly asked what he thought about western civilization. He is supposed to 
have said that he thought it would be a good idea.

Similarly, humanitarian intervention would be a good idea, in principle. But can 
we expect that with the existing power structure, distribution of power in the 
world, there will be humanitarian intervention?

There is nothing new about the question, of course. The idea of humanitarian 
intervention goes back to the days of the Concert of Europe a century ago - in 
the 19th Century there was lots of talk about civilizing missions and 
interventions that would do good things. The US intervened in the Philippines to 
"uplift and christianize" the backward people, killing a couple of hundred 
thousand of them and destroying the place. The same thing happened in Haiti, the 
same thing happened with other countries.

We cannot disregard the historical record and talk about an ideal world. It 
makes sense to work towards a better world, but it doesn't make any sense to 
have illusions about what the real world is.

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> I don't understand the following statement of Chomsky, after he shows 
> the hypocrisy and faults of R2P. Perhaps someone can explain... 
> 
>> American public opinion brings up a further consideration.  The maxims 
>> that largely guide international affairs are not graven in stone, and, 
>> in fact, have become considerably less harsh over the years as a 
>> result of the civilizing effect of popular movements.  *For that 
>> continuing and essential project, R2P can be a valuable tool,* much as 
>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been.