Thursday, August 11, Policy Immigration Arguments against immigration come across my desk every day but their variety is limited — rarely do I encounter a unique one.
Notes Introduction We are instant spectators of every atrocity; we sit in our living rooms and see the murdered children, the desperate refugees.
Perhaps horrific crimes are still committed in dark places, but not many; contemporary horrors are well-lit. What is our responsibility? What should we do? From the Assyrians in ancient Israel and the Romans in Carthage to the Belgians in the Congo and the Turks in Armenia, history is a bloody and barbaric tale.
Still, in this regard, the 20th century was an age of innovation, first of all, and most importantly, in the way disasters were planned and organized and then, more recently, in the way they were publicized.
It may be possible to kill people on a very large scale more efficiently than ever before, but it is much harder to kill them in secret. In the contemporary world there is very little that happens far away, out of sight, or behind the scenes; the camera crews arrive faster than rigor mortis.
We are instant spectators of every atrocity; we sit in our living rooms and see the murdered children, the desperate refugees. It is a good doctrine, because exceptions are always necessary, principles are never absolute. But we need to rethink it today, as the exceptions become less and less exceptional.
Cases multiply in the world and in the media: I want to step back a bit, reach for a wider range of examples, and try to answer four questions about humanitarian intervention: First, what are its occasions? Second, who are its preferred agents? Third, how should the agents act to meet the occasions?
And fourth, when is it time to end the intervention? Occasions 3 The occasions have to be extreme if they are to justify, perhaps even require, the use of force across an international boundary. Social change is best achieved from within. The occasions have to be extreme if they are to justify, perhaps even require, the use of force across an international boundary.
We should not allow ourselves to approach genocide by degrees. Still, on this side of the chasm, we can mark out a continuum of brutality and oppression, and somewhere along this continuum an international response short of military force is necessary.
Diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, for example, are useful means of engagement with tyrannical regimes. The sanctions might be imposed by some free-form coalition of interested states.
Or perhaps we should work toward a more established regional or global authority that could regulate the imposition, carefully matching the severity of the sanctions to the severity of the oppression.
But these are still external acts; they are efforts to prompt but not to preempt an internal response. They still assume the value, and hold open the possibility, of domestic politics. The interested states or the regional or global authorities bring pressure to bear, so to speak, at the border; and then they wait for something to happen on the other side.
Now we are on the other side of the chasm. The stakes are too high, the suffering already too great. Perhaps there is no capacity to respond among the people directly at risk and no will to respond among their fellow citizens. The victims are weak and vulnerable; their enemies are cruel; their neighbors indifferent.
The rest of us watch and are shocked. This is the occasion for intervention. We are best served, I think, by a stark and minimalist version of human rights here: With regard to these two, the language of rights is readily available and sufficiently understood across the globe.
Still, we could as easily say that what is being enforced, and what should be enforced, is simple decency.
When the oppressors are too powerful, they are rarely challenged, however shocking the oppression. This obvious truth about international society is often used as an argument against the interventions that do take place.Christian views on slavery.
Jump to navigation Jump to search. Part of a series on Slavery and while not explicitly expressing an abolitionist point of view, Quakers played a major role in the abolition movement against slavery in both the United Kingdom and in the United States of America.
The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments. Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy.
Gentlemen, there is a second point, a second order of ideas to which I have to give equal attention, but as quickly as possible, believe me; it is the humanitarian and civilizing side of the question.
Start studying Unit 4: US History H. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Those who favored American imperial expansion in the late 19th and early 20th century believed it would. humanitarian and Republican. He lost favor with the American public due to the Great Depression and his ill-fated.
"Containment" in the context of post-World War II international diplomacy on the part of the United States referred to the policy by which the United States committed itself to preventing any further expansion of Soviet power.
Another contradiction to the US's principled foreign policy is elements of racism that can be seen in the African slave trade and Mexican War. Another example is the US assumed control of the Philippines because they were "un-fit for self government."Over all, in many cases, these "principles" have been used as a cover story for other.