I
am inclined to agree with aspects of both Butler's and Parra's arguments, but
draw a different conclusion about the promises of intervention. Butler makes the claim that SHEs are far
too often simplified into mere problem solving- a type of narrow-minded ordeal
that turns a blind eye to the larger context and eliminates altogether the
possibility of prevention as key players utilize these emergencies as a
starting point rather than a consequence of an alarming neo-liberal global picture.
While she uses the example of Kosovo to illustrate this point, aspects of her
argument are supported by the Bellamy reading which detailed the lengthy and
ineffective response of the international community to the crisis in Darfur.
This response consisted of an overly consuming focus of whether to intervene or
not and dealings with arbitrary details of "definition" amidst the
growing crisis.
Parra
makes a strikingly similar argument to Butler's when she states, "Until
now, however, proponents of R2P have concentrated on genocide, war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The reasons for political
realism are clear, but genealogically speaking the events of a mass atrocity
have a history; they occur in a specific place and time and reflect the
convergence of specific social practices, power relations, and discourses,
along with their respective truths." Parra goes on to discuss the fact
that the 'global south' is often weary and critical of interventions due to the
historical circumstances under colonialism and the surrounding issues of hidden
Western agendas.
While
Butler champions prevention, she is not necessarily against intervention, yet
creates what she deems a more just and contextualizing framework within which
intervention can occur (CHIA). Parra, on the other hand, is extremely
optimistic that R2P can work if its philosophical and ethical underpinnings are
carefully applied. In my opinion, intervention serves to undermine the very
arguments Butler and Parra make, as it reinforces the existing neo-liberal
global order in which Western interests are promoted under such pretexts as
democratization and stability, at the expense of other peoples. (We need only
look at U.S. actions in Iraq, its unfaltering alliance with Israel, its lack of
action in Rwanda, its "on the fence" policy in Pakistan, etc). This
in turn, perpetuates the very circumstances which Butler and Parra deem
undesirable, and exacerbates issues that stand at the root of successful and
effective humanitarian intervention that the two authors attempt to arrive at.
I think what both Butler and Parra are doing is critiquing interventions while still recognizing that sometimes we can and should stop mass atrocities. It is a tough position to take and you are right in your critique because they are a little incoherent on this.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that mass atrocities should be left alone should they occue?
I liked your idea about intervention merely continuing the global order where Western interests are at the forefront. Perhaps becoming involved cannot do much but just exacerbate the situation. But where do we draw the line with something so heinous we must intervene?
ReplyDeleteI do not think mass atrocities should be left alone should they occur, however, I certainly think that the concept of humanitarian intervention has largely been undermined in recent years, especially with the U.S. actions in Iraq. Undergoing interventions under the pretexts of democratization and stabilization which the U.S. claims maintain its security elucidates the fact that advancing U.S. interests is the real motive for intervention, rather than any altruistic concern for victims of mass atrocities. I certainly think the U.S. should have intervened in Rwanda, for instance, but there were no interests to uphold or promote in that region, therefore, such an intervention never occurred.
ReplyDelete