During professor Stark's part of the class we talked a lot this week about U.S. intervention into foreign affairs and things like when if ever is it okay for the U.S. to butt into another countries business, with or without their asking for it. I look at this subject in a strange way, in fact sometimes I can't even convince myself which side of the argument I want to be on in this situation. However, I am generally for U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, so long as the situation calls for the intervention.
With regards to countries like Cuba, I think that the U.S. was correct in joining the conflict for a few reasons. First off, I see Cuba both as a potential friend, and a potential enemy of the U.S., and frankly, I feel as though our leaving Cuba is what lead to the conditions there are today. I feel like had we stayed there and fixed things up and protected our economic investments, then perhaps Cuba is our friend today, or maybe even a state. I also feel that the proximity to the U.S. and the potential of a threat to the U.S. in Cuba also justifies intervention, because if we are there to stop communism in the first place, then we do not have to worry about it decades later and into the present. Had it been an issue of invading Peru or Afghanistan like today then maybe I would not be so in favor of joining, but the proximity of a nation in danger leads me to believe invading was in our best interest.
For the Dominican Republic, I also felt as though invading for a short period of time was a smart decision there as well. Although professor Serrata and the Dominican people may disagree, I once again feel as though the proximity to the U.S., and the threat of Haiti spreading to the other half of the island was just cause to invade for a short period of time. Once again, it is an issue of closeness to the U.S., and the threat of an enemy developing that leads me to believe that invading in the Caribbean was the correct move for short periods of time.
The issue of a humanitarian crisis to me is of less importance than is threat to the U.S.. I simply feel as though governing bodies like the United Nations were created to stop that type of thing, so why is it automatically the U.S.'s duty to send in our own men to fight for the cause? It should be the duty of the whole world to come together and share the burden if the humanitarian crisis needs to be stopped. If the U.S. deems it a humanitarian crisis and goes to fight then whats stopping us from invading China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or even Russia? Just because humans are not treated with the same respect as they are here is not justification to fight a war, unless the U.S. feels threatened.
For me, foreign intervention all comes down to feeling threatened, not feeling obligated.
I like your post this week, especially considering I wrote about the same thing, yet our posts are so different. I really liked your comment about how we intervene when we feel threatened, and not because we are obligated. This is so true. I have some questions for you, however, which you don't have to answer but you should think about!
ReplyDeleteFirst, why was Cuba being communist even an issue? I don't know much about it so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you said, but I just don't get why the U.S. would care. Its not like Cuba was forcing us to be communists. So why did we need to step in and try to stop it?
Second, as far as invading the Dominican Republic goes, what do you really think would have happened if the U.S. didn't intervene? I don't see it being the end of the world, but that's just me.
I do have to say, however, that I disagree with you on the issue of a humanitarian crisis. This is the only time countries actually need help. When a country is suffering from a humanitarian crisis and they ask for help, it means you are actually wanted. If a country intervenes on another country simply because it feels threatened, then I doubt the country that is being intervened on even wants that country bugging it in the first place. I think countries should just leave each other in peace unless a country cries out for help.
I didn't mean that in a humanitarian crisis we shouldn't help, if actually agreeing with you in the sense that it is more than just the U.S. that should be helping that country. In the Cold War having Cuba be communist gave Russia a base to attack the U.S. directly, and if the time came, launch a missile. In the Dominican Republic I have much less of a case, I just mean if Haiti can't run their own country, then why do we want to stand by and watch as Haiti breaks down another potential U.S. trade partner in the Dominican Republic.
DeleteHey Matt, I really enjoyed your blog post! Can't say I agree on you with everything, but I enjoyed it :) Your post really helped me to understand the opposite side of the argument about the U.S involvement. And I do agree with you on some of your points. I especially like how you said that it should not be just the U.S. intervening when there is a humanitarian crisis in another country. I totally think that the U.S. should help, but I do agree that other countries need to help to; if we all worked together it would be less of a strain on everyone. However that would make logistics and figuring out who is in charge and how to go about helping, more difficult. But this could be a good exercise for countries- it would force them to work together thus forming bonds and ties to one another, encouraging global unification.
ReplyDelete