[1] In Her Widely Known Call For American Action In The

1275 WordsMar 24, 20176 Pages
[1] In her widely known call for American action in the face of genocide, A Problem From Hell, former journalist Samantha Powers wrote “’all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’ After a century of doing so little to prevent, suppress, and punish genocide, Americans must join and thereby legitimate the ranks of the unreasonable.” Her demand was that American society at large join the few in its ranks who have vehemently fought for U.S. action in the face of genocide, long considered the “unreasonable”. Power is but one member, albeit a prominent member, of a school of though called interventionism. Interventionism strongly advocated for the use of U.S. military action to put a stop to genocide. It draws strongly from language of…show more content…
However this responsibility must be exercised only when the situation and U.S. capabilities enable a successful military intervention. Military action should be a measure of last resort and the standards for its use should be high. Those standards include multilateral action, logistical feasibility, domestic public support, and an actionable post-genocide plan for stability. [2] When determining US policy, diplomatic and economic tools of statecraft should be more readily deployed than military intervention for the purpose of genocide prevention and mitigation. As interventionist Samantha Power notes in her book, A Problem From Hell, “[t]he United States should not frame its policy options in terms of doing nothing or unilaterally sending in the marines.” The period of time pre-genocide, which may be characterized by internal unrest or civil war, is a key period of time for U.S. policymakers interested in preserving human life and a nation’s stability. If policymakers fear the development of genocide, they can take steps such as threatening legal consequences, enacting economic sanctions, or “calling on countries aligned with perpetrators to ask them to use their influence.” All of these and similar options are far less risky to the U.S. than a military intervention and can be readily applied in order to prevent violence escalating into genocide or in the case of a suspected, but unconfirmed, genocide. [3] However, not all non-military options
Open Document