It’s a cliche at this point that the past decade of American foreign policy has been dominated by the idea of humanitarian intervention. The idea of aggressively deploying the American military to save people from the world’s (very real) troubles has outlived the war it is most deeply associated with, our second Iraq excursion, now widely and correctly considered one of the worst blunders in American history. Humanitarianism was the only real argument that animated the push to involve NATO in the Libyan civil war; it is constantly invoked by those who prefer a more active American role in Syria; it is deployed by those who want American intervention in Crimea and Ukraine. Sometimes this argument is employed cynically and destructively, as in Donald Rumsfeld, and sometimes it’s employed sincerely and destructively, as in Samantha Power. But whether it call itself liberal interventionism or neoconservatism or other, this argument has largely transcended partisan and ideological divisions.
As a dedicated non-interventionist, this doesn’t make me happy. What bothers me in particular, though, is that there is an option that is almost never discussed that could have enormous humanitarian benefits with far smaller human and material costs than the use of America’s clumsy destructive force: opening the borders to, and facilitating the transport of, the people who need our intervention. This is a big, open, empty country. There is tremendous room to accept refugees here and in so doing protect them from the forces that are harming them in their home countries. Look, my preference would be a for a world without any borders, and I think a true open border policy for the United States is far more feasible than people realize (including without sacrificing our social safety net). But I know that this is not politically possible in the short term. Surely, though, the same politicians who can agitate us into war on humanitarian pretext can push to grant broad invitations to refugees to enter the United States legally, and facilitate (unofficially if necessary) escape and transport from dangerous countries.
For gay, transgender, and bisexual people in places like Russia and Uganda; for Syrians of all stripes; for those in Crimea and eastern Ukraine who fear either Putin or reprisals against linguistically and ethnically Russian Ukrainians; for those in Venezuela who agitate against the Maduro government; for women in Saudi Arabia; for liberal dissidents in Iran; for oppressed people the world over, legal entrance into the United States would represent protection against those forces that some would have us defeat with force of arms. The beauty of it is that we can accept people without having to stake a claim on every legitimate internal controversy; we merely can do so out of a desire to prevent the violence that often attends internal strife that we have no business adjudicating. I don’t suggest this as a panacea, but then, if the last decade should teach us anything, it’s the inability of military intervention to secure humanitarian outcomes. I’m willing to guess that the odds for success with this kind of humanitarian intervention are far, far higher than freedom delivered via smart bomb.
The fact that this idea so rarely comes up, when “bomb the bastards” is on the tongue of every other American politician, does not say good things about our current political economy. To me, it suggests two things: one, that whatever our humanitarian impulses towards these people may be, we would much rather they not live and work and socialize with us. It’s one thing to send a care package, whether its rice or ordnance. It’s another to let people into our communities. Second, that humanitarian intervention is typically just a rationalization for those who want us to go to war all the time anyway.
It’s a good point. During the Cold War, along with the horrific violence we unleashed, we made at least some gestures at so-called soft power, through direct aid, cultural exchange, social reform at home, measures designed to make us look impressive not just through force of arms but as an example that others might want to emulate. The underlying idea was that we could influence others through something other than the barrel of a gun. It’s a bit depressing now to have discussions with liberal-type people where the unspoken assumption, Hallmark style, is that you only care about marginalized people if you’re willing to send the very best bombs, regardless of whether the bombs will produce the results you want.
Great idea! But before Russia you could help LGBT people from Saudi Arabia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
Maybe relocate them to Utah, Texas or Arizona?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-hypocrisy-over-russias-anti-gay-laws/2014/01/31/3df0baf0-8548-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html
While a wonderful idea, I think you should watch what you wish for. Even if your political system allowed someone who believed in this to rise to the top, I don’t think you would want to see just how humanitarian Americans really are on voting day
Would we only be taking the refugees that were of one particular faction or ethnic religious group from each conflict/disaster area? So only Muslim refugees from the Central African Republic, but no Christian refugees, no Alawite refugees from Syria, no ethnic Russian refugees from Ukraine, etc. etc. Wouldn’t we simply be importing many of these conflicts along with the people involved? I get that there are some groups like LGBT folks in Uganda that are more or less “pure” victims of oppression, but so many of these conflicts seem portable.
It’s not even always the bombings; sometimes it’s just picking a side, financing, arming, emboldening, stirring it away from any compromise. As what’s happening right now in front of our eyes in Ukraine. They shower the new government in Kiev with billions of dollars, and every time they throw them another tranche, the government sends more troops to fight the rebels in the east.
Clearly Russia has legitimate interests in their neighbor’s situation, and clearly the US and EU have a huge leverage over the Kiev’s government, and they could easily force them to compromise. But they do exactly the opposite.
In Libya humanitarianism called for bombing the government to protect the rebels, and here humanitarianism calls for the rebels to be exterminated. WTF?
“Sometimes this argument is employed cynically and destructively, as in Donald Rumsfeld, and sometimes it’s employed sincerely and destructively, as in Samantha Power.”
I think the record shows that Samantha Power is no slouch when it comes to cynically employed destruction.
“This is a big, open, empty country.” — Shirley, you are speaking of Afghanistan or Libya? The USA is anything but “open” and “empty”.
Saving the poor poor fascists of Venezuela should, obviously, be of utmost importance. And saving the women of Saudi Arabia from their children – must do.
And, c’mon. We are building railroads again in California. Isn’t it time to open up the immigration from China and Ireland a little bit more, ya know, for old times sake? Aren’t they also aggrieved?
The USA is anything but “open” and “empty”.
The facts say otherwise:
http://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/zero-population.jpg?w=580&h=672
Hard to argue with an illustrated cutout map.
But, I’ll try.
Did you ever notice all those big open spaces? The ones without water? They are called deserts. Nobody should live there. It’s a desert. There is no water. No food. For people.
The other ones? The ones that are probably the last remaining forests in that part of the country? Nobody should be living there. It is the last remaining forest in that part of the country.
You got a closet? Room for a tent in the yard? House a homeless person in America before you start importing more people in need of food and shelter that, apparently, you are willing to pave over the rest of the Commons for.
You get that population density is a thing, though, right?
The Netherlands is at 405 people per square kilometer. Israel is 370. Japan is 336. Germany is 226. Those are really nice places to live.
Us? 32. Ohio by itself? 109. Oregon? About 16. Again, these are really nice places to live. The world’s land area, excluding Antarctica, is at 53/km. This is not really a question. Even America’s crowded places like New Jersey (467) are not that crowded compared to many places in the world, including places that are very comfortable to live in.
Density is also related to cultivatable land, water resources, etc. Standard of living is also related to population; if we were to add, say, another billion to the US population, that also means adding another billion US-style consumers of resources. (By the way, the US West is already using up its soil and water.) So the fact that densely population Holland is a nice place to live is sort of irrelevant.
What Steven J. Wangsness said.
Freddie, I generally like your writing, but why do you hate open space so much? People like Oregon precisely because it’s a sparsely populated state with lots and lots of beautiful wilderness and farmland. What kind of a person sees Oregon and thinks “we should really fill that all up with people?”
You sound like Matt fucking “we have too many parks” Yglesias here.
We have enormous, enormous amounts of space in this country. Have you ever driven through North Dakota? (Where, by the way, we also have plenty of work.) There is ample room for people to immigrate into Oregon while preserving its open spaces, I promise. If Americans weren’t so insane about their yards and their hatred of urban density, we could have plenty of space for people and for more open space than we have now.
Steven, whose standard of living are you talking about? If, say, 100 million people moved to the US from the world’s most impoverished places it seems to me that their standard of living would go up by a lot.
Yes, mostly. Yes to all LGBTQ people and yes to any woman fleeing the brutal conditions of Islamic-ruled countries. But please, no Muslim men, unless they are Sufi. We cannot afford to transport their general level of ignorance, sexism and violence to these shores. We should isolate these men like viruses, allowing Arab, Somali and Pashtun women a chance to freely find their own partners from a pool that won’t be filled with power-engorged misogynists.
Gosh, someone sure sounds awfully virusy here.
“This is a big, open, empty country. There is tremendous room to accept refugees here and in so doing protect them from the forces that are harming them in their home countries.”
Doesn’t this point overlook the fact that historically when migrants come to the West, they tend to flock to urban centres in which they can form their own ethnocentric communities?
“For gay, transgender, and bisexual people in places like Russia and Uganda; for Syrians of all stripes; for those in Crimea and eastern Ukraine who fear either Putin or reprisals [et al]”
You are a very compassionate person, however I can’t help but wonder if you have had the third world “imported” into your own neighbourhood, and felt the subsequent enrichment? I was jumped the other day by a Somali migrant (not an isolated occurrence in my country) and can’t help but wonder if your “compassion” extends to such victims?
Finally: is there currently a country in the world where White Europeans (like Gay Russians and Ugandans) can go to escape the growing intolerance and myopia of the modern “progressive” such as yourself, and is it racist to ask?
“This one thing happened to me one time and it was an African guy that did it” is pretty much the definition of racism.
Crude and misleading summation of my point, though I expect nothing more. Thanks for taking the time, very informative.
First comment here, hope it’ll get noticed so late haha
Freddie, what happens when people start faking oppression solely to get into the U.S.? If someone turns out to have been straight all along, do you plan to kick them out? How would we even find out about that? And frankly, I have no doubt that a lot of people would in fact do this.
Can these guys support themselves feasibly? If not, aren’t we just importing drains on our own society?