Foreign Interventions - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15156063
I want to outline some ideas on how social subjects (groups) assist another social subject and the ethics of the manner in which it is done. Then I want to prompt PoFo members to answer whether they think states tend to act in one manner or another when it comes to foreign interventions.

So the outline I wish to take is that of Andy Blunden's collaborative ethics where he situates the manner in which different projects relate to one another. THe two forms I wish to emphasize when it comes to helping others is that of welfare/philantrhopy or colonization with that of Solidarity. I'm ignoring exchange here (which characterizes market relations and trade primarily.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/collaborative-ethics.htm
Colonization
Colonization (or philanthropy) is where the master-project subsumes the other project into its own project, ‘colonizes’ it, either because it is able to and seeks to further its own ends by so doing, or because the other is in dire need and the master-project aims to ‘rescue’ it by taking it in. In either case, the autonomy and subjectivity of the other project is extinguished, but nonetheless, by becoming pro tem a part of another project, they may achieve conditions of normality and may later be able to emancipate themselves and restore their autonomy.

Note that while colonization may lead to the extinguishment of the colonized project, this in no way suggests the persons engaged in that project are destroyed. On the contrary, they are recruited into a new project.

From an ethical standpoint, since the master-project takes moral responsibility for the relationship, the ethical relationship is one of care and responsibility. They do not treat the other as autonomous and equal, but do take on responsibility for the other’s welfare as for their own, and according to their own lights.

Solidarity
Solidarity is where the subject (i.e., the project lending solidarity to the other) subordinates itself to the other and acts under its direction, in order to assist the other in regaining normality and autonomy. The subject is not in danger of losing its autonomy by subordinating itself to the other pro tem; on the contrary, it can expect to strengthen its own subjectivity. Nonetheless, trust is a precondition for solidarity and solidarity builds trust. It may well be the case that the subject sees long term advantage for itself in offering solidarity, but that is beside the point, because it gives support by subordinating itself to the other’s subjectivity; it does not use the other or ‘take it over’.

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/social.pdf
By way of contrast, I will first introduce the notion of welfare (or charity).

I see a person in distress, someone perhaps who has lost all subjectivity, having no means of livelihood, or at risk of destruction by a hostile subject; moved by compassion perhaps, I step in and rescue them. In doing so I subsume them into my own subjectivity, my own system of activity; it is an asymmetrical relationship of dependence. Perhaps having been restored to some level of functionality, the rescued party will break herself free and re-establish her own subjectivity, but as a relationship, welfare is one in which the welfare-provider subsumes the recipient of welfare into their own subjectivity. It is not uncommon in fact for welfare recipients to adopt the religious practices of the charity which helped them or for them to go on to become welfare providers themselves. But as a relationship, welfare is a system of activity, a subject, which undermines and negates the subjectivity of the recipient. Like any system of activity, welfare generates its own subjectivity and a whole industry can grow up around the activity of welfare provision. This relation therefore comes under the heading of “colonisation” — “benign colonisation” perhaps.

State intervention of this kind need not be conceived under the concept of charity however; it may be Rights (as in free public health and education in many countries), community obligation (as in Veterans and “senior citizens”), mediated individual accomplishment (as in “self-funded retiree”). There is currently a powerful tendency towards stigmatisation of social groups by means of “welfare;” communal responsibilities are exercised in a way that gives institutional forms to the ethos of a community, and this offers only certain modes of assistance, not limited to the stigmatising mode of “welfare.” [Nancy Fraser]

By contrast to the relation of welfare, what I mean by solidarity is this: you are struggling, for whatever reason, perhaps I think “There but for the grace of God go I,” I come to you, a stranger to me, and say “What can I do to help?” I voluntarily subordinate myself to your subjectivity; the relation of solidarity puts you, the recipient of solidarity, in charge; as giver of solidarity, I demand no say in what I can do for you, but by submitting myself to your subjectivity, by lending a hand as they say, I strengthen your subjectivity. Solidarity is, in my opinion, the single most important relationship in respect to the crisis of modernity, which I describe as a decline in social solidarity.


My impression of foreign state interventions that at their most charitable interpretation is that of the benign colonization where those who can't help themselves end up subordinate to the aims and wishes of the assisting state. There is the prospect of restoring the autonomy of those who were helped but often they are subject to the helper's project.
This is opposed to that of solidarity which originated in the French revolution and the Chartist movement in England. It became a principle of the worker's movement that only the workers could free themselves and would achieve it through solidarity, supporting one another's endeavors.

With these two characterizations of helping others in mind, how would you typically characterize state interventions and assistance and it's implications.

I currently have the cynical impression that many states such as the US intervene to pursue their own interests and even in their best of intentions subsume those they help and thus act as a kind of colonizing force of American views, values, and ways of life regardless of whether people want it or not.
And so when there are attempts to appeal to humanitarian crises and the sort, the idea that America is simply assisting a people I think is undermined by the distinction elaborated above that I don't think it acts in solidarity with people around the world but largely pursues it's own geopolitical interests and this can have a problematic effect on those they claim to be helping in many situations.
And this is a charitable view that hasn't even considered the notion that such global problems simply serve as an initial motive and once it helps justify intervention they show little regard for the stated benevolent intention.

I realized in myself that I once had the sense that where there were wrongs that they must be made right but that this is insufficient a basis to seek to intervene in anything I see many interventions do not necessarily improve the situation and add further conflict. So it often seems like the justification for intervention boils down to one's interests and values of what is to be pursued by such powers over and above those who are experiencing the problem. I am cynical of the person who feels the strong need to act and little thought of the consequences as I don't think many offer solidarity to others, they only extend their hegemony.
#15156066
Wellsy wrote:I currently have the cynical impression that many states such as the US intervene to pursue their own interests


This isn't cynicism. It's largely true. However, pretty much all nations intervene in the affairs of others for mostly their own interests.

Sorry I just picked out this one line. :lol:
#15156073
@Wellsy , I really can't add anything as your summary pretty much sums it up. If freedom liberty charity security or whatever bullshit excuse was the reason for intervention we would be running the entire continent of Africa by now. The ME has oil and people remember Suez. So the ME is liberated and most of Africa is run by banana republics. Geopolitics is the reason for intervention. There is no other reason but excuses must be seen as ethically correct. So everything is about freedom and liberty.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15156173
Are all foreign interventions bullshit with the fascade of moral grounding to gain initial legitimacy?
Is there no grounds on which to defend some state actions on the international level with a different quality?
#15156186
Wellsy wrote:Are all foreign interventions bullshit with the fascade of moral grounding to gain initial legitimacy?
Is there no grounds on which to defend some state actions on the international level with a different quality?


Wars are expensive Wellsy. They also cost lives. The only two post western WW2 conflicts that I can think of that were solely down to intervention and not profits were the Falklands War and NATOs involvement in the Yugoslav War. And even those two conflicts were down to geopolitical reasons. Had the UK not ruled the Islands or Yugoslavia was not in Europe, those people wouldn't have been liberated.

Since Suez and the French and British involvement and embassment, the idea to go to conflict without cause and purely for racketeering purposes died because it doesn't give you home support nor does it give you UN support. Vietnam was about the Commies, Iraq 1 liberation and sovereignty, Afganistan and Iraq 2 security, Libya and Syria tyranny. But all were secretly to do with either oil or to maintain Western influence at the expense of Russia. The Cold War has never really died. Russia and America still compete against each other for their personal geopolitics. And that is best illustrated by Isis. Same enemy. Same goal. But they couldn't work together because Assad had to go. So ISIS then became a football for who controls Syria. And control was important because the ME has oil. And it is the same with NATO tolerating Erdogans bullshit. Turkey happens to be located in perhaps the most important place on the planet. It is the gateway into Europe from the ME. So Erdogan always gets what he wants from us even though perhaps the West would ideally replace him with a puppet and Russia have had their issues with Turkey despite now being on friendly terms.

So to answer your question, there are grounds for foreign intervention. However there execution is down to geological reasons and never humane reason hence why Africa especially is largely ignored. And intervention is usually in the form of sanctions (which always hurt the people and not the state in any case) and not war. If the West go to war, there are profits to be made.

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]