Here's a note from William Edmundson, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq, on the Leiter Reports blog. Read it here.
He points out something we often do not hear about: the refugee problem that has been placed upon many of Iraq's neighbors due to the conflict.
What do you make of this? What is the US's moral responsibility (if any) regarding this refugee problem? If you were a representative of one of the sovereign powers that border Iraq that are dealing with this problem (i.e. Syria or Jordan), how would you feel about this situation? Presume, for argument's sake, that you (as Syria or Jordan) did not see the pressing need to remove Sadaam because your nation had no real self-interest in his removal (this isn't entirely accurate, but grant it for the moment). Under Sadaam you had no Iraqi refugee problem. Now, due to the changes in Iraq over the past three years, your nation is stuck with this problem -- that you had no hand in causing... what kind of moral claims do you think you would make regarding your nation's situation and perhaps other nation-state powers?
BTW, The Leiter Reports (originally just the Leiter Report until he added other contributors) is a somewhat popular philosophy news blog. Leiter is a philosophy at Texas who head's up the Philosophical Gourmet (a ranking system of Philosophy graduate programs). His blog now frequently posts political commentary and discourse -- very often highly critical of the Bush adminstration and current US foreign policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe the US only remains partly responsible for the refugee problem. The US should be assisting these countries in setting up refugee camps and ensuring their basic needs are met. However, the surrounding countries should bear the biggest burden.
For one, they let Saddam stay in power. Even if he did not interfere with their governments, they have a duty to prevent such tyranny. If I lived next door to a guy who constantly beat his kids, you'd bet I'd call the cops on him. If they wouldn't help, I'd get together with my neighboors and kick the guy out of the area.
Secondly, if the US does give them assistance in dealing with the increasing population, they should take a more active interest in the war. Not only could they send troops, hunt down terrorists, they could also openly support the US operations. All three actions would most likely help reduce the influx of refugees into their country.
The US does bear part of the burden for the refugee problem in the Middle East. Since the attacks were US led and at the insistence of the United States, the US should also lead the effort to set up camps and provide some assistance for the refugees.
However, since the neighboring countries have openly admitted that they at times did not feel safe with Saddam in power and did not have the resources to try to end the tyranny that spread into their countries from his rule.
The Middle East often cites European powers for their probelms due to the map-making issues where the Middle East feels more unified as a region than they do as individual countries. If they truly do this, then they should prove it by providing the assistance needed to their fellow Arabs. The US should help provide resources, but the neighboring countries would be best suited to be the front line.
Finally, I would agree that the neighboring countries do not necessarily have a duty or legal obligation to help out with the situation. However, just as LOAC recognizes that people helping injured enemy combatants does make them the enemy, so does the idea of helping refugees. therefore, the neighboring countries should feel a moral obligation to help out their fellow man.
Post a Comment