from
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/koseth.html
Remember that there is no neutral or universal definition of help.
Consider these two examples....
1 - a unit of US Marines raids Afghanistan, and takes 50 women back to
the US. The US Government justifies the raid by explaining that the
women had been held in seclusion in their houses, and were not allowed
to work. The few times they were allowed out, they were obliged to cover
their body and face entirely. In the US, the women receive training, so
that they can get a job and become economically independent. The US
Government distributes a statement by the women, saying that they are
thankful to their rescuers for their liberation.
2 - a unit of Taliban guerrillas raids the US, and takes 50 women back
to Afghanistan. The Taliban government justifies the raid, by explaining
that the women had been forced to go out to work in order to survive.
They had to leave their house almost every day, they were obliged to
publicly display their hair, face, and even their knees. In Afghanistan,
the women are given a conscientious husband, who provides for their
support, so that they can stay home and care for the children. The
Taliban leaders distribute a statement by the women, saying that they
are thankful to their rescuers for their liberation.....
Are both of these actions "rescues"? Are both groups being "helped"?
That is impossible, and it is not simply a question of cultural
relativism. There are conservative Christians in western countries, who
also think that women should not work, and that it is a "liberation" if
they remain at home. Even within one culture, there is simply no
consensus on what is "help" or "rescue", certainly not in complex and
politicised actions. There is no consensus even on the Holocaust, which
is used in politics as if it were a moral absolute. For instance the
arrival of US troops at German concentration camps in north-western
Europe is referred to as "liberation". In reality, the US troops removed
the prisoners from one political and social structure, and put them in
another. To be specific, they put the prisoners in a free-market
economy. A "liberation" would imply freedom to choose, and there was
none. It was a dishonourable act of the US and other Allied soldiers, to
take advantage of the weakened and traumatised prisoners, to impose
their own false values. Similarly, NATO soldiers who take women from a
rape camp run by a Serb militia in Kosovo would not be "liberators",
since they explicitly intend to put the women in a Kosovo with liberal
values.
A military intervention can never be a simple rescue, like pulling a
drowning person out of a lake. It will include actions, which some
people do not see as "help". So how far can an "obligation to help"
oblige anyone to support an intervention package, including hundreds of
military and diplomatic goals?
--
Paul Treanor
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/koseth.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|