Foreign Intervention : International Conflicts

On patrol serving as a special constable I was called to a male that was feeling suicidal and saying he was going to kill himself. On arrival I was met by a young male who I could see was clearly and obviously distressed and emotionally upset. He said he was troubled and confused and had an urge to kill himself. It was clearly necessary for me to intervene in the situation to keep him safe and ascertain if he had done anything to himself prior to arrival, e.g. legal overdose or taken drugs.

Monroe Doctrine: statement issued by President James Monroe stating that the Western Hemisphere was off limits to further European intervention

Should the United States enter into military intervention in foreign countries for humanitarian reason? Why? Why not? Under what conditions should the U.S. intervene if at all?

“Never again!” might be the only international promise U.S. has made globally. Unfortunately, we have broken that promise. Communities and leaders all over the world vowed never again would we let such atrocities like the Holocaust ever happen again. Easier said than done, the US sat back and watched the people of Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia suffer in their own country. Their own leaders strip all of their civil liberties and puts all their lives in danger everyday. Millions and millions of people lose their loved ones, live their lives in terror, and are robbed of the human rights that we, as Americans, are blessed with. The US spends 700 billion on military spending, and we still have not used the power we have for good. We realize how important our freedom is to us, and it important we help other countries when in need.

[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.

Imagine living in a world where your own homeland is under attack and you can’t rely on any other parts of the world to send you help. There are a multitude of reasons as to why we urgently need the interventionism policy in the United States. One of the biggest reasons would be while the Holocaust was occurring in Germany we were well aware about it, but didn’t come to intervene until it was too late. Along with this, another reason would be to maintain the allies that we have. Although the United States needs to consider the financial and human costs, overall it should follow a foreign policy of interventionism when it’s necessary to prevent humanitarian catastrophe and to maintain our allies.

When problems arise people step up and take responsibility. Like in the quote from Elie Wiesel, human suffering really is everyone’s problem. In war and times of conflict, America has intervened because they believe that it is their problem to try and solve. This is evident through speeches in World War I, propaganda in World War II, letters during Vietnam, biographies concerning the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and speeches from the War on Terror.

Before World War II, American interventionism was often overt and direct, simply landing troops on the shores of some prospective banana republic and installing a 'friendly' government there. This is exactly what happened in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, in some cases more than once. Theodore Roosevelt was hardly shy about admitting that he sent troops to Puerto Rico and the Philippines, taking Panama from Columbia or landing in person with the army in Cuba in 1898. This phase of American overseas imperialism has much in common with the previous era of frontier expansion, wars against Native Americans and the annexation of half of Mexico in 1848. New Left and Revisionist historians of the 1960s and 1970s like William Appleman Williams (1972), Gabriel Kolko (1969) and Walter LaFeber (1963) all traced the roots of post-World War II imperialism directly back to this pre-1945 expansionist impulse. Manifest Destiny and the racial attitudes towards blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans that accompanied it existed long before the U.S. became an urban, industrialized economy. Racism dates back to the colonial period in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and the type of expansion that occurred was mainly agrarian and aimed at acquiring land, which was the base of the economy until well into the 19th Century. To that extent, American imperialism was atavistic and existed long before capitalism and the

I think it would depend upon the situation and who it affects. If it affect the United States allies then they should intervene. But if it is something that another country can figure out and doesn’t affect US, then there should be no intervention. It should more than likely be in the best interest for the US. In many cases in which the US interfered with foreign affair often lead to Wars. By making a deal with Spain, they took Philippine’s and interfered with their national affairs which lead to the American-Filipino war. Another example would be the intervention with Cuban affairs. This country wanted to create an independent constitution and the Platt Amendment was created and allowed the US to take over naval bases for their benefit and

The articles that made up the reading for this week deal with the causes of war in Afghanistan today, and shifts in US strategy. They provide different explanations on why the US has maintained a military presence in the country, ranging from terrorism and security to economic and human rights concerns. All of the authors, however, agree that US intervention has largely been a failure, as the US remains no closer to peace than in 2001.

From a decade in “Red” Vietnam to a decade in “Terrorist” Iraq, Post-WWII America consistently has forced its involvement into conflicts, claiming to be defending human rights and democracy. The problem is that the Red Scare had been brainwashing Americans into associating Communism with people who were bent on world domination. America was only viewed as the enemy by the Communists because we insisted on being so. Furthermore, we face a similar problem against those who believe in terrorist causes. Not all nations are equally targeted, but by our reactions alone, the United States has managed to become the primary target. Decades ago, we forgot that Communism, while dangerous to democracy, does not have to be

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

The key objections to humanitarian intervention include the conflict of interests with the self-interested state and sovereignty, the difficulty of internal legitimacy, the problematical Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the debate over legality of intervention. The issue of morality stands as an overarching issue which touches on all of these. Overall, one finds that despite a moral imperative to intervene, humanitarian intervention should not occur but is perhaps the lesser of a series of evils.

The United States has been a super power for decades, and since America has always involved themselves in other countries' problems. Instead of isolationism, the country has practiced getting involved. Since the Monroe Presidency, America has been named the World's police force. Dispelling anarchists, and stopping coos, the united states portrays itself as the world protector. Since Monroe, some Americans have felt that isolation is the way to go, and most feel that it is our right to offer assistance. Two recent incidents, Operation Desert Storm and The War in Bosnia have allowed the United States to show off it's strength, both on the military and political level. It has also given the chance for America to evaluate it's foreign policy,

The debate of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect have been discussed in international relations discourse more seriously within the last 60 years. The major historical developments which have led to an increase in the intensity of these debates have had beneficial and detrimental effects on Earth within the last 20 years. Several factors have contributed to this including; globalization, the rise in international accountability, an increase humanitarian consciousness to prevent major atrocities from occurring, the expansion of territorial to global responsibility of the western world, and the realization of the western world that regional sovereignty no longer accounts for national security. To develop an opinion