But that doesn't mean that I disagree with you. Far from it. We can impose peace. We can even impose democracy. But we just can't breathe life into the governments of these places.
This is the core of the problem. And so far, I can only think of two general lines of response:
1. Intervene diectly in these kinds of states over and over again and hope that eventually something shifts 2. Stand back, using only minimal direct intervention to limit the risks these states pose to the rest of the world, and see what develops - while trying, where appropriate, to support progressive factions within the country and using diplomatic/economic measures to encourage change (as with South Africa).
The problem, as I see it, with the first tack, and at times to a lesser extent with the second tack as well, is that you risk alienating the populace, to the point that whatever develops, develops in directions that you don't want - for instance, ending up with most of the citizens of Lebanon supporting Hezbollah.
I think there are some places where the accumulated weight of everyone's actions, on all sides, over decades or even centuries (in those places where the consequnces of colonialism and imperialism are underlying everything else), is such that there are no ways to act at the present moment that will end in solutions everyone would accept. In those places, my inclination is to try to figure out what action would cause the least blow-back, if you will.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-09-08 09:49 pm (UTC)This is the core of the problem. And so far, I can only think of two general lines of response:
1. Intervene diectly in these kinds of states over and over again and hope that eventually something shifts
2. Stand back, using only minimal direct intervention to limit the risks these states pose to the rest of the world, and see what develops - while trying, where appropriate, to support progressive factions within the country and using diplomatic/economic measures to encourage change (as with South Africa).
The problem, as I see it, with the first tack, and at times to a lesser extent with the second tack as well, is that you risk alienating the populace, to the point that whatever develops, develops in directions that you don't want - for instance, ending up with most of the citizens of Lebanon supporting Hezbollah.
I think there are some places where the accumulated weight of everyone's actions, on all sides, over decades or even centuries (in those places where the consequnces of colonialism and imperialism are underlying everything else), is such that there are no ways to act at the present moment that will end in solutions everyone would accept. In those places, my inclination is to try to figure out what action would cause the least blow-back, if you will.