I am in favour of forceful intervention in other countries, notably the recent examples of Iraq and Libya. Thus hitting upon the often offended and/or surprised look from my fellow students and other acquaintances, who believe a self-respecting humanitarian cannot possibly be in favour of the mass killings all wars initiate. With this I do not agree, for I am convinced of exactly the opposite: that a humanitarian cannot avoid going to war, that pacifism is a case of moral bankruptcy, and neutrality a case of never wanting to grow up. But with that: let us begin with summarising the “lefties” arguments before I destroy them.

TEXT: Christiaan Wöhle
PHOTO: Joriel “Joz”Jimenez

War creates many innocent victims, including women and children. In the aftermath of often random destruction, chaos will follow suit, creating even more victims. If the war was particularly brutal, constructs vital for the prosperity of a country will need to be rebuild, such as hospitals, schools, roads, sewage, government offices etc. Even worse might be the risk of corruption that, if it takes hold, will damn a population to poverty for decades to come. Furthermore, with what right do external parties intervene in an internal conflict? Infringing upon the sovereignty of another country opens to the door for others to do the same to you (the old “pursue the devil until he turns around when you have nowhere left to hide” argument). And how can the population appreciate the value of something (such as democracy) they haven't fought for?

Well, my dear hypocrite, let me stretch my muscles a bit, as writing space is lacking for taking out my ray gun. For the case when something outrageous goes on in a country, such as genocide or a particularly ruthless regime, the U.N currently has three basic options. Intervention (war), economic sanctions or isolation. I inject that intervention is most often the more moral choice, with some rare exceptions, while someone with the views of the previous paragraph would naturally disagree. This brings us to some concrete examples, that according to me, speak better than abstract argumentation.

The war in Iraq claimed somewhat over 150'000 lives, of which 100'000 civilians[1]. A number anyone in favour of the war must carry and never forget. Yet those same people who would use this number as an argument, are responsible for the economic sanctions that were in place in Iraq and delayed deposing Saddam Hussein. My response to them? How about you remember the million casualties from your sanctions, of which a bit over half were young children[2]? How about you owe up to the fact your way has the Rwanda genocide on its conscience, after giving them every chance possible to finish the job (you don't need to worry any more, they're all dead now)?.  How about you remember most of you were ready to let a dictator bomb “his own” civilians in the thousands in order that you keep your hands clean?