Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
As Utah Dan stated, it is ironic for those who desire intervention in Sudan or in other places in Africa, where the US has no economic or strategic interests, also oppose intervention where the US has economic or strategic interests.
|
Its almost worse than that because the argument, at least at one point, was that it is wrong for us to do things for selfish reasons. I would not agree that there is not place for "dogooders" though. I think that there are many things that we can and should do because they are morally right, but I would qualify that by saying that in most cases these acts need to align with our other interests. If not, you invite other nations to freeride on your generosity. If you listen to Europeans, you would think that all of the worlds problems result from "America" either doing too much or not enough, in other words, they don't think of their nation as part of the problem or the soultion. What is morally superior Europe doing about Darfur? Who has offered to commit troops? And why not? Not in their self interest either. Same reason they have not gotten involved in Iraq.
Europe talks a good game about international community and international law and collective action and in the end acts in their own slef interest. And they should do. Our idealists on this continent, however, should not be decieved that when we do what is best for us that we are not in step with more enlightened westen societies. These societies, in terms of committing money and resourses, look indifferent to Africa compared to us. And yet we are the villain aroud the world. This just underscores my point that where we "do good" we should do it realizing that we will get nothing in return, no support from anyone else and will in the end be blamed for any part of it that goes wrong. This 180 degrees from what some thing is right, that is, that we only should act when we have no self interest.