The Duty to Intervene in Conflicts Around the World - Essay Example

The Duty to Intervene in Conflicts around the World On April 6, 1994, a missile shot the plane of the President of Rwanda, President Habyarimana, a Hutu. For weeks after his assassination, around 200,000 Hutus killed the Tutsis, an ethnic minority with whom they have a long-time ethnic rivalry. The result is the Rwanda genocide wherein 800,000 to more than a million were believed to have been brutally killed. Many of the Tutsis were murdered through machetes hacking their bodies, men, women, children, even infants, alike, only because they were Tutsis (“Genocide in Rwanda”). France, Belgium, the United States, and even the United Nations, did not intervene to stop the slaughter, and instead, they decided to pull out 90% of their peacekeeping soldiers and to evacuate all white people from Rwanda (“Genocide in Rwanda”; Rwanda Genocide Documentary). Some people believe that the U.S. and other powerful nations do not have a duty to intervene. We have a duty to intervene in conflicts around the world because it is right to do something that should be a universal law and because to do so without expecting anything in return is to treat people as ends in themselves who have moral worth. At the same time, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that member states have a duty to promote universal human rights and freedoms. Moreover, I believe that it is wrong to just leave and look the other way or to not do anything, like what happened to Rwanda, because these are innocent people who are unarmed and who have no one else to protect them, not even their government, so another government should help them out of their humanity where compassion and goodwill live in. We have a duty to intervene in conflicts around the world because it is right to do something that should be a universal law. Immanuel Kant describes in “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative” what it means do what is good. He offers two categorical imperatives, which are commands that must be done unconditionally. The first categorical imperative is to act according to the maxim that it “should become a universal law” (152). If nations help other besieged people in other countries, this should be a universal law because it is the act of rationality to help others in dire need. It is wrong then for France, Belgium, the United States, and the United Nations to not extend help to the Tutsis whom they were aware were being systematically slaughtered (“Genocide in Rwanda”; Rwanda Genocide Documentary). The peacekeepers were already there, they should have at least protected as much people as they can and not leave the innocent people of Rwanda who cannot defend themselves. In the documentary, Rwanda Genocide, Major Brent Beardsley believed that there were enough peacekeeping troops in Rwanda, and that there was enough time to send an intervention from the U.S. but the U.S. did not do it. He said that there were 3520 U.S. Marines, 500 French paratroopers, and 100 Belgian paratroopers. But the sad fact, he said, was that: “[They weren’t] there to save Rwandans. [They were] there to save white people” (Rwanda Genocide). We should intervene in such conflicts because it is the right thing to do universally. These people cannot defend themselves but we can help them, and we should because it is a moral act that deserves universalization. Furthermore, as the “Genocide in Rwanda” article stressed, these nations could have done something more to discourage or reduce the deaths of the Tutsis in Rwanda. The United Human Rights Council stated that “[p]olicymakers in France, Belgium, and the United States and at the United Nations were aware of the preparations for massive slaughter and failed to take the steps needed to prevent it.” It added: “Not only did international leaders reject what was going on, but they also declined for weeks to use their political and moral authority to challenge the legitimacy of the genocidal government. They refused to declare that a government guilty of exterminating its citizens would never receive international assistance.” These nations did not have to send more troops, but to maximize existing troops to maintain peace in Rwanda, save the Tutsis, and express condemnation against the radical Hutus. Instead of doing what they can for the Tutsis, these powerful nations left Rwanda. They left hundreds and thousands of innocent people to die. They should have intervened and did what they could to diplomatically help the Tutsis because it is an act that should be a universal law. To help the most defenseless in other nations should be a universal law. Furthermore, we have a duty to intervene because to do so without expecting anything in return is to treat people as ends in themselves who have moral worth. Kant’s second imperative asserts that we should treat one another as an end, not as a means to our ends. The U.S. and other nations that can help Rwanda should help, even when they cannot get anything in return, because it means that we see the Tutsis as human beings like us who have moral worth. Monique Mujawamariya, a human rights activist, was smuggled out of Rwanda to speak to U.S. officials and ask for stronger U.S. action. She spoke with Anthony Lake, National Security Advisor to President Clinton. She realized that, as a U.S. official, he “did not want to take action” (Rwanda Genocide). She also learned that the “U.S. has no friends. It has interests and it has no interests in Rwanda” (Rwanda Genocide). For America, there was nothing to be gained in saving the Tutsis, so they did not help them. To think this way is politically strategic but against our human moral worth. We should intervene because the Tutsis needed us and to help them is the right thing to do because like us, they have moral worth and deserve to be seen as ends, not as means to our interests. Additionally, we should intervene because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that member states have a duty to promote universal human rights and freedoms. It asserts the importance of human dignity for all people: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Radical Hutus did not recognize the dignity and rights of the Tutsis, including the basic right to live, as it is stated in Article 3 of the Declaration: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Instead, as the documentary showed, the Hutus killed all the Tutsis that they could kill, whether they were unarmed, and even if they were women and children (Rwanda Genocide). The streets showed piles of dead bodies, including infants. No one was spared. It is wrong to allow carnage in other countries if we have some means to help them in any way. To do nothing is to be a silent accomplice to these crimes. The U.S. and other nations should have stopped or decreased the slaughter because it is part of their duty as being party to the Declaration. These nations that pulled out of Rwanda signed this Declaration which states: “Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” They have a moral obligation to do their mandate, to promote human rights wherever they are. General Roméo Dallaire, Commander of the United Nations mission for Rwanda, did not want to pull out because it would be against their mandate to do so (Rwanda Genocide). To leave the Tutsis to die was a moral dilemma because it was against their duty, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These nations knew their mandate. We should intervene because we should protect all people’s human rights as party to the Declaration. At the same time, in support for Kant and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I believe that it is wrong to leave or to do nothing, like what happened to Rwanda, because these are innocent people who are unarmed and who have no one else to protect them, not even their government, so we should help them out of our humanity. The Tutsis and moderate Hutus were under attack by an irrational group of radicals. The Tutsis were unarmed. Many were women and children. They did not have a government who could protect them because the government itself wanted them killed. They need outside help and intervention. They need intervention from those who can help them. We should intervene because it is the right thing to do that should be done in all cases, as Kant said. At the same time, to intervene in behalf of the oppressed is the right thing to do because it is the humane thing to do. We should show compassion and goodwill to others because we are human beings helping one another. In the trailer of Hotel Rwanda, Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), the manager of Sabena Hôtel des Mille Collines, wanted to help the Tutsis even if he is a Hutu. He said: “We need to help one another. That is the only thing that is keeping us alive.” Indeed, I agree with him for in cases of slaughter and genocide, we must help because it is about us being human and helping fellow human beings. If we think that we have the right to life and security, we should also help others access this basic human right. Without helping one another, I do not think we can call ourselves human at all. To be compassionate is to be humane and to be humane is to be human. We should intervene in conflicts around the world because, Kant would argue, it is something that should be turned into a universal law and because it means that we want to help others because they are ends who deserve help. Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it clearly that those who signed it have a moral obligation to promote universal human rights and freedoms. Finally, I believe that we are human beings who should help our fellow human beings in need. The Tutsis are an example of people who needed help the most because their government did not just abandon them. Their government wanted to exterminate them. They could not help themselves because they do not have any armaments, and so we, as peacekeepers, should help them. To intervene is to save the defenseless innocent. To intervene is what moral human beings with moral worth would do. Works Cited “Genocide in Rwanda.” United Human Rights Council. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. Kant, Immanuel. “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative.” Print. Rwanda Genocide Documentary. PBS.org. CwnInternational, 14 Mar. 2012. YouTube. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. Web. 6 Nov. 2014. Read More