To Intervene or Not

I believe it was right to remove Saddam Hussein. The matter of when to intervene in the affairs of others, and what justifies such interventions is currently one of the great divides that separate political opinions. Do we sit back and just tend to our own knitting? Or, do we step into the affairs of others when morally justified and how do we come to such moral decisions. Do we stand by and watch as the Janjaweed in Darfur slaughter Africans? Do we ignore genocide (remember Rwanda) because the victims are “far away” and “different?” The Jews of 1940s Europe were “far away” and “different.” If we could travel back in time, would we have intervened to stop Hitler sooner? Answers to these questions seem to be part of America’s dirty little secret. We desperately want to avoid foreign entanglements but also recognize the responsibility to respond to injustice.

The Bush administration has advocated spreading democracy in the Middle East. This is a bold even arrogant act but also noble and capable of making a meaningful difference to the future of that area of the world. Nonetheless, no nation can cavalierly decide to interfere with another, especially militarily, just because it carries around the moral hammer of democracy. Interference is justified when taking up arms against blatant violence, but rarely in other circumstances.

Still, the promotion of democracy and human rights is an imperative. Research on democracy promotion explains that human empowerment rather than intentional restructuring of governments is most successful at democracy promotion. The U. S. could be successful at democracy promotion by encouraging self expression and citizen participation and avoiding a militaristic stand. Democratic ideals take firmer root when based in human empowerment rather than aggressive intervention and forcing democratic institutions such as elections.