Humanitarian Intervention

Approval of any major action taken by the United Nations must be given by the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, any of the five permanent members of the Security Council have the ability to veto any course of action voted upon by the council. As a result, the bureaucracy within the council virtually neuters its ability to take quick, decisive action. Article II basically states that no member state can take any action within or against any other state without the approval of the UN.

In some cases, member states have been compelled to circumvent the UN and its bureaucracy laden structure in order to accomplish meaningful humanitarian missions. A perfect example is the war in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council (Russia and China) blocked any attempt by the other powers to prevent a repetition of the 1995 Bosnia genocide. Once again, the Christian Serbs were setting out to cleanse the former Yugoslavia by getting rid of the Muslim Albanian Kosovars. Following the botched attempt by the UN at “Peacekeeping” in Bosnia, the western powers on the UN Security Council flanked the UN by engaging in Kosovo by way of NATO, the consequential trans-Atlantic military alliance.

The gamut of problems which fall under the umbrella of humanitarian crisis is extensive, ranging from mere food aid for disaster relief, to military intervention to prevent or halt genocide. The military end of the gamut is the more controversial within the UN and has a tendency to cause strife between member states.

The moral dilemma between engaging in a humanitarian crisis and ignoring it is more complex than could be covered in multiple volumes. However, the west, due to its adherence to a “superior moral compass”, has typically engaged or considered engaging in various types of humanitarian crises in order to prevent or lessen the damage caused thereby. The totalitarian history of the west’s Asian counterparts seems to lean Russia and China away from humanitarian causes.

In democratic societies, the danger of intervening is that the citizenry is typically not very keen on seeing body bags come home in exchange for humanitarian benefit in some far off land. Inasmuch as the people hold the ultimate power in a democracy, elected officials are likely more willing to listen to popular opinion and therefore less likely to take risks which would have little political value.

The dilemma lies in the moral compass. It’s obvious that it would be morally commendable to intervene in some humanitarian crisis if the cost was zero, and most Americans would probably agree. But when the perceived costs of that intervention exceed its perceived value to the public, even if the costs might be well worth the outcome to a benefitted group, officials are likely to steer away from committing to it. The advantage to elected officials in a UN intervention, rather than a unilateral one, is that they can take credit if it goes well, but shrug it off on the UN if it doesn’t. If things had gone badly wrong in Kosovo, President Clinton would have heard about it in a bad way.

A major complication with circumventing the UN, as in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, is that other states, member and non-member alike, may then use that action as justification and precedent in performing their own unilateral action. Russia may easily have used that very case when it invaded Georgia in 2008. This principle applies to humanitarian intervention as easily as military endeavors. China could easily invade a neighbor on humanitarian grounds using the precedent established by NATO in Kosovo. The advantage NATO has in this instance is that NATO is a broad coalition of numerous nations. The problem is that unilateral action undermines the international order established within the UN. If states rampantly disregard the principles of the UN, it might as well not exist.

US Sovereignty vs. the UN

As a nation which prides itself on the “rule of law” in the social fabric of society; and one which supposedly respects and admires morality, justice, equality under the law, ethics – in short “traditional Judeo-Christian values” – in that society; and as a nation which ultimately values peace in order that one may freely go about life without the interference of war or crime, the United States of America must inherently appreciate the existence of the United Nations and the order it provides in the international arena. However, the UN Charter explicitly guarantees the sovereignty of nations, in other words, the UN is not the government of the world.

The United States of America, as an independent sovereign nation, whether guaranteed by the UN Charter or not, implicitly reserves the right to govern its own affairs in a way which best accomplishes the needs and protection of its people, its territory, and its existence. As a sovereign nation, if the interests of the United States of America come in conflict with the UN or any of its member states, if there is no middle ground to be compromised, the United States must act adamantly on behalf of its people out of obligation to them to insure their interests. The allegiance of the governing bodies of the United States is to its own people, first and foremost, and only secondarily to the betterment of the human condition across the globe, or to whatever other cause may arise.

As it pertains to the issue of national security, the UN is an excellent means to a better end, not the end itself. The UN is not the government of the world. As demonstrated by President George W. Bush in 2003 with his invasion of Iraq, whether one is in agreement or not with the act, the United States reserves the right to act for itself even it is if in conflict with the United Nations and its set of governing principles, or in disagreement with its member states. The governing principles of the United Nations do not, and cannot supersede the law of the United States of America in America. The wishes and demands of UN member states cannot supersede the needs and interests of the citizens of the United States of America when the latter's governing bodies are called upon to act on behalf of its citizens. The UN certainly must be respected in the international order, its customs and practices adhered to insofar as any sovereign nation is reasonably able, but each sovereign nation must retain the right to act unilaterally on behalf of its citizens, if or when the UN is unable or unwilling to do so. Until the world as a whole is willing and wanting to forfeit its sovereignty to the United Nations, the nations of the world must continue with the traditional role of sovereign governments. This must remain the case with the United States of America until that time. The UN is still not the government of the world.

Terms You'll Want to Know for the 2008 Presidential Election

Affirmative Action: Actions taken by the government or some private entity to counteract the results of past discrimination in social, economic and educational arenas. For example, If a person owns a business in a largely minority town and everyone that works for that person is caucasian, he/she could be prosecuted for not having a balance of employees at least somewhat reflective of the local demographic.

ANWR (Ann-waar) – Alaska National Wildlife Refuge: The area along Alaska’s northern coastal plain where a mother load of oil is waiting to be harvested. A huge debate rages between environmentalists on the left and "Big Oil" men on the right about whether or not to open the pristine nature reserve to oil drilling and development.

CAFE (Kaff-ee) – Corporate Average Fuel Economy: MPG. The standard the federal government uses to insure conservative fuel consumption in passenger cars and light trucks.

CAFTA (Kaff-ta) – Central American Free Trade Agreement: A free trade agreement between Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the United States.

Charter School: A school funded by tax dollars but which is exempt from abiding by regulations and standards which govern ordinary public schools. Charter schools are often regulated by a board of parents and do not necessarily require a teacher to have a degree associated with the field in which they teach, and sometimes, don't require a degree at all.

CNTBT – Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: A treaty between 44 nations which, at the time of its inception, possessed either nuclear weapons or nuclear energy capability. It contains a comprehensive ban on nuclear detonations. Created in 1996, this treaty has still not been ratified by several participating states, and therefore is of no effect to any. The treaty will take effect 180 days following the ratification of the last participant.

FTA – Free Trade Agreement: An agreement between two or more states (countries) outlining the basis on which they will trade for each other’s goods and services at no cost, i.e. no tariffs, border fees, or any other type of non-tariff barrier.

GATT (Gatt) – General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: Predecessor to the WTO. A loosely constructed agreement between many states (countries) founded on principles of free, or quazi free, trade, monetary policy, economic security, etc. GATT was intended to counteract the effects of protectionism and depression which followed the stock market crash of 1929 and the economic problems created by WWII.

HMO – Health Maintenance Organization: Any number of health service providers which are not insurance companies. An HMO is frequently a conglomerate of doctors, hospitals, and health care providers that band together to provide strength in numbers.

Kyoto Protocol: An amendment to the U.N. Convention on Climate Change which sets forth mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol must be ratified by member states. Many states already abide by the restrictions but many others don’t. Some member states haven’t ratified it but still abide by the restrictions.

Medicaid: A federally subsidized program intended to provide medical care to the poor, to those who do not qualify for Medicare, and to those who can’t otherwise afford health care.

Medicare: A federally subsidized program intended to provide medical care to the disabled and the elderly who can’t otherwise afford health care.

NAFTA (Naff-ta) – North American Free Trade Agreement: The free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. It guarantees the free trade of goods and investment between these states without any restriction by means of tariffs or other non-tariff barriers.

NATO (Nay-toe) – North Atlantic Treaty Organization: 26 member countries including Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Originally began as a hedge against hostile Soviet action following WWII. Since the 1990s it has become more a mini-military-UN.

OEF – Operation Enduring Freedom: The official name of “The War in Afghanistan”.

Off-shore Company: A company which sets up its base of operations in a country which does not extensively tax said company. That company then does a majority of its business in a different country (the United States). That way, all that income will be taxed based on where it has its base of operations and the company avoids paying the high taxes of the country where it does the majority of its business. Often the company’s base of operations office is no more than a hole in the wall but because it calls that place its base of operations it gets to avoid all the taxation associated with the country where it does most of its business. In these cases, most of the operations occur in the country of business.

OIF – Operation Iraqi Freedom: The official name of “The Iraq War”.

OPEC (O-peck) – Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries: Members include Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. OPEC is an oil cartel which has a large impact on the price of oil due to its large market share.

PAC (Pak) – Political Action Committee: A political group not directly associated with a political party but with some special interest group, such as educators or farm workers. A PAC raises money for and endorses specific political candidates for public office. Many politicians operate PACs as well and raise money that way for their own political purposes. These PACs will not only donate to their own campaigns but to their political allies as well.

Pork (Barrel): Spending by the government that is of little use to anyone, anywhere except in a very localized municipality somewhere. For example, some congressperson wants money to restore a deteriorating library in a politically important town in his/her constituency. Every congressperson has one (a pork project) and nobody wants theirs to be eliminated so they all vote for everyone else’s in order to keep their own. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Tit-for-tat. Quid-pro-quo. None of it is good for the nation as a whole and a huge majority of it should be dealt with by the local authorities and local tax dollars, but since politicians generally lack integrity, they choose to do what is best for them rather than what is best for the United States as a whole.

SDI – Strategic Defense Initiative: Sometimes called Star Wars, sometimes called Missile defense. The not yet fully developed or reliable concept of shooting down incoming missiles using modified Patriot type missiles. The concept requires very advanced identification, tracking, and targeting systems that are not yet more than 50% reliable in test runs. The program is very expensive and whether it is worth the expense is much debated since there are only a few remaining nations that have the ability to launch a missile at the United States.

Soft Money: Money contributed to political parties to finance party operations but not to support specific candidates for public office. Often used as an umbrella term encompassing any money contributed to candidates for public office which is ethically questionable in origin and purpose. For example, a Senator from Kansas who perpetually favors oil drilling in ANWR receiving large campaign contributions from wealthy oil companies, or a Senator from Wyoming receiving large contributions from the NRA (National Rifle Association) who consistently favors unfettered gun access.

U.N. – United Nations: 192 Member States. Headed by the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, of South Korea. World security stops with the Security Council, a board with 5 permanent members which include the United States, China, France, United Kingdom and Russia, and 10 rotating seats which are elected by the U.N. General Assembly for 2 year terms, 5 of which are replaced annually.

Vouchers: Money given to parents by the government to enable them to send their children to a school of their choice, rather than to the public school which they would ordinarily attend. The debate is over whether the money would be better spent improving the existing public education system.

WTO – World Trade Organization: The successor organization of GATT (GATT was only an agreement, this is an actual organization). The WTO has 150 member states and promotes free and fair trade on a global scale. The WTO is often associated with globalization, the ideal being a world where no tariffs exist, nor non-tariff barriers. The WTO has been the brunt of many protest campaigns aimed at protectionism and protecting local and regional trade. In many instances free trade hurts local economies as that business can be obtained for less somewhere else in the world. Many local economies have been and will be hurt by globalization and the WTO. Others will be greatly benefited. The term comparative advantage is critical. Comparative advantage is the idea that each area should produce what it is most efficient at producing, and buy everything else from those who are best at producing everything else.