http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/06/world/africa/nigeria-violence/index.html?hpt=wo_c2
The CNN article covering the backlash the US Mission in Nigeria is facing from the nation shocks me because it reflects the hate people have for the West on one hand. On the other hand, I can understand that the hubris Western nations, particularly the US, exude when dealing with the foreign affairs of non-Western nations. I believe it is an example of the US playing the part of world police. Whether that should be a title we embrace or not is up for debate.
Ethically, I believe we have a responsibility to care for nations that need assistance from national disasters and genocide. But, many times reasons for Western aid fall into a grey area when dealing with dictators and how to solve the problem of failing economies and politics of a third world nation such as Nigeria.
In this particular situation with the Nigerian government as it develops as a, what appears to be, radical Islamic militant groups, the grey area on US involvement is getting darker and darker. I can conceive the reasons for the Nigerians hostile response to the West—their history with us begins with being ruthlessly seized from their homeland, sold into the slave trade, and the inhumanity of that entire era. But the leading political party of Nigeria is literally named “Western education is sinful.” It’s clear they downright hate the West and thus makes the task of occupying Nigeria a dangerous and in some ways fruitless effort. I think of the phrase, you can help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.
How will involvement of the West help end the violence brought on by the Boko Haram groups if its presence is one of the sparks that set the powder keg off in the first place? Other than offering sanctuary to current government leaders and those who do no participate in the Islamic fundamentalist movement, what role does or should the West play in solving this crisis in Nigeria? The job of “world police” should not be the responsibility of any one place or entity—the days of divide and conquer helped initiate resentment toward the West in the first place. Perhaps a better approach would include stepping back from Nigeria and focusing on places and ways to offer sanctuary to those who require it and keeping the Islamic movements from too much contact with the US, for the increasing contact and control we take only increases the hate in their hearts.
I agree with much of what Emily says in her post, especially concerning the ethical dilemma that Western nations face in aiding developing nations. If one examines the genocides that have occurred in just the 20th century, the lesson too often ends with the realization that the United States or another Western power supported the party inflicting the genocide either monetarily or through arms sales. Additionally, Western colonial powers often left behind crumbling nations that led to the mass murder of minorities. It is not altogether surprising then that post-colonial and Middle Eastern nations hold animosity towards the West, although I agree with Emily that the depth of such hatred can be shocking. I don’t think I could even begin to prescribe a solution to such a complex problem. While I believe that international aid organizations that can act in the place of formal government aid are great, they are often at least partially staffed and financed by Western countries which may only lead to more problems in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that so relatively few people such as the Taliban can harm or kill so many. I also agree with much of what Emily said. The West has supported some parties who were committing genocide like Marlee mentioned in her comment. The colonization of Africa also causes many problems we face when dealing with modern African nations. The mother country often left her colony weak and with a barely functioning government or no government, so it comes to no surprise that they resent or dislike us. The West has created a large amount of their problems, and it has already failed them once by the exploitation of its resources and people. It is sad that some people seek to get harm others just because they are from the West.
ReplyDeleteI think that sometimes the police power of U.S. does get used more than it needs to be. Yes it may be important for the West to help third world countries by providing humanitarian aid and such but I don’t think it is necessary to have excessive use of the so called “police power” because it could negatively affect us Americans in a way. Suppose we decided to help a country going to war with another country by being allies of the country going to war then that would automatically make us enemies just by supporting our allies and that would create more trouble because now the other country's enemies would want to attack us as well when we were only trying to "help". So sometimes I believe it is better not to meddle with other countries personal businesses especially if we have many things to worry about in our own country and also at a time when the economy is not so strong. So there really must be a cut off line as to when we should or shouldn’t provide police power and meddle with other countries. Also in this case Nigeria probably doesn’t want us there in the first place so why waste our time trying to help a country that doesn’t really want our help. So i think the aspect of making a judgment call as to when to use the police power should be a very important part of our political system in this day and age when help may not really be regarded as help because some countries may be offended at the fact that they need "help" in order to run their own country.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Sana that the police power of the US does get used more than it needs to be. The US has to be particularly careful when dealing with Nigeria. The country itself gives the US 22 to 24 percent of its total oil imports. The US should help from afar and not use any form of direct involvement. If they did it would almost be instigating a fight since their party idea is "Western education is sinful." Caution must be advised that with that statement they don't want our help nor our ideologies in their country; just our money for oil. This money for oil is power to them, power they can finally have after the West's seized their homeland and sold them into the slave trade.
ReplyDeleteIt is always shocking to see the hate and resentment that countries, such as Nigeria, show towards Western ideologies. It is also interesting to see that these hateful sentiments are not shared by all of the people of Nigeria. The main opposition party of Nigeria, the Action Congress of Nigeria, was “horrified” by these violent attacks. I believe that humanitarian aid to countries who house terrorist groups should not be stopped. Just because some people oppose Western ideologies and society, does not mean that everyone from that country are oppose to them.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals can label the United States as world police. Call us the instigator of the world, busy bodies. Whatever hat the nay sayers choose to label us with. It is all fine with me, because as much as pessimist is going to nag, saying that we have no right to intervene in another nation’s affair, or that they don’t want us there; I know for that every militant hates for the western ideals we represent, there are two people the militants have oppressed and harmed that are beyond ecstatic that we came to their aid. It’s easier for a to say the militants hate us, that’s fine. I’m more concerned with the child whose armless because they removed it with a cleaver. We are there for a purpose, and that’s to protect those in need.
ReplyDeleteAlthough terrorism is not new, the type of terrorism that has sprung up since 9/11 has left questions of how the world should go about dealing with it. Nigeria has a difficult battle a head of them and it will be interesting to see how the government will react to these events. In the US Supreme Court Case, Hamdi v Rumsfeld the court looked at a case of an American Citizen who had been arrested in Afghanistan and detained at Guantanamo Bay without a trial or any charges. The government argued his detention was legal because of an executive order made by President Bush in the wake of 9/11 which allowed the State to detain enemy combatants for indefinite amount of time with out a trial or any charges brought against them. Justice O’Connor wrote in her opinion that at times of war it is important that we maintain the rights and procedures our constitution granted and American’s due process could not be sacrificed, but laws due need to evolve to new threats.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason the United States intervenes in foreign conflicts is to protect our trade interests. Sure, it's a little cold, but that's the truth. Conflicts in Africa, for example, rarely threaten US trade interest, but conflicts in the Middle East threaten trade interests all of the time.
ReplyDeleteThat is why the world resents Team America World Police. We're not intervening to help anyone, we're doing it so that we can set up a government that is beneficial to us, regardless of whether or not it benefits to people living there.
If we want people to stop hating us we need to either genuinely help set up democracies were they are wanted, or we need to stay out of it.
I think this is a deeper ethical issue. I kind of believe the US is going a little too far, but it might be necessary. I think this has some vague similarities to the PATRIOT Act from the early 2000s, because it targets a group of people because of a few people's actions. Sometimes intervention like this is beneficial for our safety and our freedom (not to sound cliche). I'm interested to read more about this and see what people's reactions to it are. I think it's important to prevent and stop violence if it could ultimately effect our country.
ReplyDeleteI see very many valid points brought up in regards to the West acting as a sort of "world police". Although we have had many backlashes for being so involved in other nation's business, many of which have resulted in the death of countless citizens both U.S. and foreign, I believe that we have also gained both respect and the appreciation from nations worldwide. Not saying that everyone agrees or even has no opinion in that matter, because that would be naive, but rather that it is my belief that even if you help very few, it is worth it. I agree with Nick's example of helping the armless child that has had it taken from them in the midst of evil regimes in other countries. If we don't take the initiative to help those suffering, who will? My opinion on this matter is not concrete, however, because I feel that there can be no wrong or right resolution on this matter. Do we help those in need at the expense of our own citizens, or do we sit idly by as fellow human beings suffer unfathomable harm?
ReplyDelete