Humanitarianism, As It Suits Us

Published: Saturday, April 09, 2011, 10:58 AM

By Guest Columnist The Oregonian
By Charlie Phillips 

President Barack Obama has given a rousing speech justifying, yet again, American military intervention in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. He justified his actions by stating that his motive was humanitarian. I have no doubt he believes that. But, historically, virtually every military action has been justified in those terms -- even the worst. Japanese troops brutalizing China in World War II believed they were there to create an "earthly paradise" and to protect the suffering population. And that's just one example.

 
Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi waves to supporters as he arrives to speak in Tripoli, Libya, Wednesday, March 2, 2011.

Noam Chomsky has proposed a test of legitimacy when leaders make such claims. To paraphrase: When citing noble intent as justification for their aggressions, does a call for humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect extend to defending the victims of their own crimes or those of their allies? If no, all bets are off.

Did Obama, for example, call for a no-fly zone during the incredibly brutal and indiscriminate U.S.-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006? No. In fact Obama holds up as a trophy his support while in Congress of this atrocity. Has he called for intervention in the violent suppression of dissent by the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain?  How about Darfur, North Korea, China? No, no, no.

And lest we swell too much with patriotic pride at what a great benevolent protector of innocents we as Americans are, let us never forget how we sat idly by and watched 800,000 murdered in Rwanda while we and the rest of the world did nothing.

Had Obama at least mentioned oil, his case for intervening in Libya would have taken on greater meaning and honesty. Libya is rich in oil, and specialists believe there may be a lot more where that came from in untapped resources. The truth is the U.S. and United Kingdom have given support to Libya's cruel dictator, right up until just the last couple of months -- despite his atrocities -- for access to that oil.

But the problem with Moammar Gadhafi, and the reason the U.S. and Europe want him out now, is that he is no longer reliable. We want a more obedient leader. Saving the lives of innocent civilians along the way to getting that more reliable client is icing on the cake and something we may take pride in. It is also a powerful point of rationalization -- something Obama uses to help him sleep at night, no doubt. But have no doubt, if it weren't for Libya's riches and strategic importance, the U.S. government would be willing to watch yet another genocide, another Lebanon, another Rwanda.

We cannot justify military aggression with arguments of humanitarianism and the need to protect only when it suits our greater needs and purposes. Obama and the U.S. have failed the Chomsky test, miserably so. We are involved in the internal affairs of three countries now, using war and destruction as our means. All three are in fact unjustified. It has to stop.