Re: Kosovo paradigms

Richard,
I agree that we must critically examine actions taken in the name of
humanitarianism, and we should be doing so in this instance. But let's also be
wary of the sweeping historical statements.  You say that great powers always
act in great powers' interest and never in the interest of suffering humanity.
It sounds like a universal covering law.   But if that were the case,  would
power ever change hands?  And there would never be any evidence of any real
humanitarianism to counter pose against the phony, self serving
"humanitarianism" that some believe the US is putting forth purely for
propaganda purposes.?

Great powers and small powers and both are made up of people who have many
interests, often competing, and they often don't know what in the hell to do
to resolve them, especially at times like this.  I imagine that at least some
of them listen to their constituency, and look to their own moral code for
answers.   I would employ this as my operating asssumption.


Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Kevin J. West wrote:
>
> > Some discussants on the Kosovo crisis have tried to link the NATO action
> > to a larger, Western geopolitical agenda of expanding political and
> > economic hegemony.  Making this link has generally involved the
> > torturing of reason.  For example, though the violent conflict that has
>
> It is true that some particular versions seem to be nothing more than
> cobbled together conspiracy theories.  But as opposed to the below
> argument (knee-jerk anti-imperialism), it seems clear to me that the
> overwhelming tendency is knee-jerk "taking humanitarianism at face value."
>
> It does not require any conspiratorial attitude or slavish adherence to
> leftist doctrine to see, based on the historical record, that great powers
> act in great powers' interests, not on behalf of suffering humanity.
> This should be the operating assumption until proven otherwise, not the
> reverse.
>