So why do we really ignore tragedy, genocide, general brutality and even manipulation when it occurs outside our own realm? Some will blame ignorance, but in reality, the issue is much more complex.
Although misinformation can be to blame, it is frequently not the true excuse. The United States has been called the "policeman of the world" in reference to our frequent intervention in foreign diplomatic issues for the sake of the common good. Teddy Roosevelt, who intervened in foreign affairs a number of times during his presidency, and his "Big Stick Diplomacy" was especially indicative of this role.
Today, the US continues to intervene in other nation's affairs for the sake of freedom, democracy and the "common good." Nevertheless, this intervention is often self serving. Some will ask why the United States does not to more to help alleviate the current tragedy in the Congo or even the Rwanda genocide. Politicians blame misinformation, but in reality, US intervention often seems more tied to potential economic gains. The US often seems more giving of aid to oil-rich nations (take Kuwait in 1990 as just one example). It seems that a lack of intervention in these lesser-known areas of the world could be attributed to a lack of fiscal or political gain to be had.
Lack of media coverage, and therefore public knowledge, can also be to blame. Take the current war in the Congo for example. Although catastrophic and horrifying, it receives relatively little news coverage. The US took a similar bystander role in the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
A similar bystander effect can be seen in issues close to home as well. In World War II, many Germans complied with Nazi tyranny because of a "surely that could never happen to me" type attitude. Out of fear, many became Nazi supporters. These supporters chose to ignore atrocities in their own nation because they feared the repercussions if they spoke up and felt powerless to do so. A similar affect occurs today. Many politicians and citizens turn a blind eye to this brutality because they fear the consequences of speaking up or feel they are powerless.
(Written in response to question 5: Why don't people speak up sooner when they realize that mass brutality, manipulation, and subterfuge is going on in various of the less-well-know corners of the world?)
I definitely agree in that the United States' intervention in other country's affairs do provide us with some type of benefit, perhaps an alliance with a country with a precious resource, such as oil (like you mentioned). I agree that it is a combination of many factors that refrained powerful nations from speaking up against many atrocities around the world. Our own greed, ignorance, and fear has probably halted some humanitarian actions.
ReplyDeletebeyond simple greed ignore and fear, i think it also has to do with the fact that our intervention means sending thousands of troops into an area. They aren't just some cost to associate with humanitarian efforts that can be put into dollars. They are real people whose lives we are risking to do something that they themselves might feel aren't worth risking there. The military is here to protect and serve the United States and its citizens, and many don't believe their lives are worth being laid down for people of other countries without some seriously good reasons that serve our own country. Maybe we stand by atrocities because we don't want any of our own to be among the body count.
DeleteThe human cost of military intervention is definitely a factor. We have to consider how many lives could be lost and the likelihood of actually "winning" the war/conflict. I too think that the military's primary responsibility is to protect our own nation before entering into other conflicts.
DeleteI like your points about the United States as the policemen of the world. However your point about lack of media coverage might need more evidence. If you and I know about the war in Congo then perhaps there is enough media coverage. Also the reference to Nazi Germany adds credibility to your point.
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying about media coverage about the war in Congo. However, I still think there is relatively little coverage compared to other (often less important) issues.
DeleteI agree, and also adding onto your reference to Nazi Germany, you could discuss how perhaps it took citizens longer than it should have to realize the terror in what they were doing because they were acting under authority.
DeleteI think another factor that caused people not to speak up in WWII Germany was the idea that if they didn't say anything, the Nazis would leave them and their families alone. Like you said, I too think the fear of the immense authority of the party was also a factor.
DeleteAlso, the Nazis tried to cover up what they were doing. They would clean up the concentration camps and pretend they were actually helping the people their when visitors came. In the beginning, ambassadors from other countries actual thought the camps were helpful.
DeleteThat's very true, I forgot about that. The Nazis were especially misleading to foreigners as well as other Germans. The Nazi government fostered a sense of German-national pride that drew many into the party.
DeleteI agree with your ideas about political intervention. Politics always have personal gains invested in international issues. I wish you had explained more on to how individuals, not just countries, react to seeing atrocities. For the few who visited Central Africa, I wonder how many actually spoke up.
ReplyDeleteI too wondered how many people who were actually in Central Africa actually did anything to prevent to atrocities they were witnessing. I would guess that not very many spoke up, probably out of fear of repercussions. However, from reading the other blogs, I do know the explorer, David Livingston, did work to try and end slavery there.
DeleteOne thing that your post really did for me was think of the United States in its "world policeman role". I have heard the term many times and used it myself but when reading your post I started to see another side of it. You are correct, we consistently intervene in the affairs of other countries. The countries we interfere with are sometimes similiarily as powerful as us but sometimes they are weaker countries. When we intervene we try to create good, democracy, hope, and freedom, we try to create a world similar to ours in America. But when was the last time we got a return on our investment? We have tried to restore power to the democracy in countries before only to get rejected and attacked by the countrie's people and resented by our own country. Why would the United States want to continue to put time, resources and aid out there when it experiences backlash either way? By helping another nation who has fallen to brutality and atrocities our country either faces negative response from our people, or from the people of the country we try to aid. Perhaps we need to try and individualize the impact we try to leave on a country. Not all countries can support a democratic government, or enjoy freedom, or know how to experience hope. It is our job as a superpower to help other countries achieve THEIR OWN goal, not the goal our country has set for itself. Great Post. Very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you said about our need to help countries achieve their own goals (instead of our own democratic ideals). Although we would like it to, democracy does not seem to work everywhere, especially when the culture has intrenched ideals in direct opposition. I think that the "return on investment" from intervention in other countries is very limited. We don't seem to be gaining much politically or economically and the nations we are attempting to help seem to remain in turmoil.
DeleteYou have a certainly impressive point on how the US did not do anything in regards to the genocide in Rwanda. I did my long form on a book about the genocide, and I was shocked to find out how completely useless the US was for the longest time. I think it's just a matter of not caring as much, because the incidents do not affect us. I completely agree with you on everything in your post.
ReplyDelete