Hanlon As the first rumble of the Great War's cannon fire reached the New World, there had already formed a decisive bloc opposing American belligerency. It included ethnic groups, such as Irish and Eastern European immigrants who had grievances against some of the Allied powers; gatherings like the Progressives, suffragettes and prohibitionists who were more interested in pursuing their causes than waging war; and Westerners and farmers who did not feel any affiliation to Europe. These anti-interventionists were buttressed by the long American tradition of noninvolvement in the political affairs of the Old World and by President Wilson's early, insistent declaration of American neutrality. Nevertheless, as the World War unfolded, these "doves" had to face novel and confounding events that forced them to reevaluate their positions.
Old Wine in New Bottles? March 18, The French government attempted to justify its military intervention in Mali on humanitarian and security grounds. Despite its public relations efforts, the French government has not been able to avoid accusations of neocolonialism.
Some have argued France has failed to abjure its outmoded paternalistic-colonial tendencies, while other critics suggest more immediate economic concerns motivated the intervention. Regardless of the actual reason for the campaign, France seems unwilling or unable to extricate its contemporary foreign policies from its colonial legacy.
Charles Glass argues that such a policy is only likely to contribute to a worsening of the humanitarian situation in the country without providing a resolution to the civil war. Despite expressing a desire for peace in Syria, western governments including the UK have consistently opposed the Assad government, and would therefore have little credibility as mediators in the conflict.
The Russian government, on the other hand, has been more sympathetic to the Assad government. Glass argues that, if humanitarian concerns are actually prioritized, diplomatic efforts could more effectively be channeled into pursuing an agreement with Russia to prevent the importation of arms for any side of the conflict.
Humanitarian aid organizations are expressing deep concerns about this strategy because their ability to be granted access to conflict situations relies heavily on their political neutrality and strict agenda of responding to humanitarian needs alone.
If the US plans go ahead, the Assad government may not only restrict access, but perceive aid agencies as a front for a US military agenda. This has multiple consequences. Humanitarian aid agencies could be blocked from entry, or even become military targets themselves. Also, if aid is selectively given to some groups over others, the aid itself can become a source of conflict, thus fostering more violence.
Regardless of political affiliation, children in need of food should be given assistance. This is the principle of humanitarian aid, which can be damaged beyond repair in a situation like Syria, if its apolitical reputation is tarnished by intervening powers.
The Worst is Yet to Come February 20, The recent French intervention in Mali was successful in repelling the Islamist fighters who had previously established control over much of the country. While insurgents no longer control northern Mali, and are not in a position to invade the capital Bamako, there are some initial indications that tactics of asymmetric warfare including suicide bombing may precipitate a more protracted conflict.
So long as the underlying causes of conflict remain, violence in Mali will likely continue, even if French intervention has stemmed the direct military threat of an insurgency. Guardian Hate Obama's Drone War?
February 14, The Obama administration has recently been the subject of criticism for its controversial use of drones. Ultimately, the US drone program is predicated on a flexible interpretation of sovereignty, a concept that has had its strictures attenuated by the proponents of humanitarian intervention.
The conflict in Mali is fundamentally grounded in nationalist grievances and aims which have been co-opted by relatively marginal religious extremists.
Roy contends that extremist groups endeavor to entice western intervention in order to transform nationalist conflicts into confrontations with the west.Non-interventionism is the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history among government and popular opinion in the United attheheels.com times, the degree and nature of this policy was better known as isolationism, such as the period between the world wars.
The domestic reactions in the United States after the military intervention in Libya ranged from criticism to support. Unlike the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, which were carried out largely without external intervention, the brutal reaction of the Gaddafi regime to the protests that began in January and February quickly made it clear that the Libyan opposition forces would not.
The current U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, who is the most dispositionally interventionist among Obama’s senior advisers, had argued early for arming Syria’s rebels.
Our view on foreign intervention is in chaos. We need a solution Observer editorial. Russia's actions in Crimea highlight the need for a new agreement on why and when it can be just to violate.
Essay about American Foreign Policy in Syria Words | 5 Pages. growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. Intervention is as ancient and well-established an instrument of foreign policy as are diplomatic pressure, negotiations and war.
From the time of the ancient Greeks to this day, some states have found it advantageous to intervene in the affairs of other states on behalf of their own interests and.