Neo-Philosophical Argument
I believe the moral duty of a state, in the international
community, can be grouped into two. We have maxima moral duty and minima moral
duty; however, I am going to discuss in detail only the maxima moral duty of a
state. The moral duties
that states are required to do in the global community are called, the maxima
moral duty of a state. They include the duty of a state not to attack or
threatening the peace of another state, and the moral duty to
intervene, with the intension of humanitarian liberation, when another state is
massively violating the fundamental human right of its people. According
to Christoffer Lammer-Heindel, all states have maxima moral duty, or what he
described as the duty to assist when there is a massive human suffering or
death (1). Human life is the most valuable commodity, resources, and end. It is a valuable source, capital, and means that led to the production and existence of all other valuable things. Morally, it should not be traded, exchanged, or substituted for anything. This is why all humans have the duty to protect human life whenever human life is in danger or being threatened. Let’s take a domestic analogy for example; you live in a city where there is no police or any kind of law enforcement body. Your neighbor is drowning in his swimming pool located at his backyard. If you are aware of this, and you can swim perfectly, and saving him would not cause a significant danger to your life, you have a moral duty to save his life. This analogy can be used when discussing the role of states, in the global community. All states that are militarily powerful and economically developed have a maxima moral duty (morally required) to rescue and provide aid assistance as best as they can whenever human life is in danger, or being threatening by disease, hunger, or death.
Moreover, as
human life is very valuable and priceless, human right is also a necessity
whenever there is an existence of human life. Whenever human life is being
protected, preserved, and valued, the right of that life to live peacefully,
happily, and securely must not be denied. Normally, one cannot say it values
human life and at the same time, deprives human life its essential rights.
Therefore, as it is a moral duty for all humans to protect human life, so it is
a moral duty for all humans to make sure that the essential rights of human are
not violated or deprived. However, a state is not just made up of a territory
and a geographical location, but importantly a population or a community of
human. So, if the government of a state is overwhelmed or cannot put an end to
an atrocity or a massive violation of human right in its country, other states
that are militarily capable and economically in good standing, have a maxima
moral obligation to intervene on the basis of humanitarian intervention.
The US Moral Duty in the Darfur Region of Sudan
Between 2005 and
2006, Darfur region of Sudan was in a mist of civil war; there was what you can
call high level atrocity and calamity. Death of human life was at the peak;
there was a displacement of over 2 million people, and uncountable human life
was loss due to hunger and deadly diseases. During this disastrous period, the
Sudanese government was unable to provide aid and assistance to the people who
were suffering. The government was unable to control and stop the militia
group, Janjaweed, which was the mastermind of the chaos. In addition, not only
was the government useless and ineffective in bringing this chaos to an end, it
was accused of supporting the mass-murder of human life that was going on in
the country (Schwartz).
Even recently,
between the year 2015 and 2017, crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan continues.
There are reports of use of chemical weapons against civilians while targeted
killing of Christians and non-Arab Muslims continues (Gellar). Yet, the United
States of America and other powerful and developed countries have done little
or nothing to intervene (Carafano). The United States for instance, is
economically and militarily powerful. She has adequate and sufficient resources
to intervene in in the region, on the basis of saving human life and protecting
human right without posing much risk to herself. Thus, the moral duty of
protecting human life was in her hand and she should have intervened.
Refuting Opposing
Argument
Sovereignty is one of the most important fundamental rights of a state. It is the foundation of the freedom of a state to be in the way it pleases (Haass 54). Using the domestic analogy for example, sovereignty is like the right of an individual to exist without being enslaved or controlled by another individual. Sovereignty is so essential in the global world that any political community that lacks sovereignty is not recognized as a state. A political community that lacks sovereignty can be governed, colonized, or controlled by another sovereign state. Therefore, it is important and it is a maxima moral duty for a state to recognize and respect the sovereign right of other states to be independent and not be threatened.
Thus, one could
argue that if The United States were to perform her maxima moral duty and
intervene in the Sudan crisis, it would have violated the sovereignty of Sudan.
This argument cannot stand because a state can lose it sovereignty when it
massively violates human right and destroys the life of its own people. As I
have noted above that human life and human rights are the most important
valuable means and end. Morally, no right should be favored above human rights,
and there should be no other ends that are valued more than human life. Though
sovereignty is a very important right to a state, human rights are much more
important and should be valued more than sovereignty. Let’s use the neighbor
analogy for example; during the time when your neighbor is drawing in his
swimming pool, located at his backyard, saving his life should be the most
important end to you at that moment. This means that during the moment when
your neighbor is drowning, he has lost his right to privacy in his own home.
Saving his life must be valued above his right to privacy. This domestic
analogy can be used in the discussion of the situation in the Darfur region.
The United States had a moral responsibility to intervene on the basis of
saving human life and protecting human rights, without regards to the
sovereignty of Sudan.
Furthermore, one
could argue that if the United States had intervened in the region, it would
have posed an enormous or deadly risk
to the life of many American soldiers. While this is a
true notion, it is a fallacy in the debate of international intervention.
Whenever an individual agrees to become a combatant for its country, according
to Uwe Steinhoff’s argument on moral equality of combatant, he or she becomes a
legitimate target of war. He or she loses its right not to be killed (p.
346-350). He or she agrees to bear a dreadful risk upon its life by becoming a
weapon of combat for its country. Therefore, during the time of war and peace,
an individual soldier is expected to be loyal to its vow, which is to serve its
country with its life. An individual soldier of the United States is to be
regarded as a part of military weapon and armor of the U.S. government. For this
reason, the risk that is posed to an individual soldier of a state, in the time
of war or peace, should be regarded as less tragic than the risk that is posed
to an individual civilian. Thus the risk that would be posed to individual
soldiers of a state is not a sufficient reason for the state not to intervene
on the basis of humanitarian liberation.
Finally, whenever human life is in danger, or fundamental human right is being deprived or massively violated, anybody, any organization, or government that is in a capable position to bring the situation to an end has a maxima moral duty to do so. In conclusion, as war of self-defense is justifiable in the international community, humanitarian intervention is also justifiable. The United States and other developed and vigorous countries should intervene in the Darfur region of Sudan without waiting on the approval of the Sudanese government. Notwithstanding, one could argue that the United States and other capable countries did not strive to intervene in Darfur because they valued self-interest as a means and an end than human life. This means that the United States would rather intervene in Darfur with the purpose of promoting its own interest than merely saving human life.
Finally, whenever human life is in danger, or fundamental human right is being deprived or massively violated, anybody, any organization, or government that is in a capable position to bring the situation to an end has a maxima moral duty to do so. In conclusion, as war of self-defense is justifiable in the international community, humanitarian intervention is also justifiable. The United States and other developed and vigorous countries should intervene in the Darfur region of Sudan without waiting on the approval of the Sudanese government. Notwithstanding, one could argue that the United States and other capable countries did not strive to intervene in Darfur because they valued self-interest as a means and an end than human life. This means that the United States would rather intervene in Darfur with the purpose of promoting its own interest than merely saving human life.
Gellar, Sheldon. "Genocide in Darfur, then and Now." Jerusalem Post (International), 14 May, 2017, pp. 14. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks-sirs-com.proxy169.nclive.org.
Haass, Richard N. “Sovereignty” Foreign Policy; Washington Iss. 150, (Sep/Oct 2005): 54-55. https://search-proquest-com
Lammer-Heindel, Christoffer Spencer. "Does the state have moral duties? State duty claims and the possibility of institutionally held moral obligations." University of Iowa, 2012.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3330.
Schwartz, Felicia. "Lawmakers Urge More Active U.S. Role in Ending Sudan's Violence." Wall Street Journal Online, 04 May, 2016, pp. n/a. SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks sirscom.proxy169.nclive.org.
Steinhoff, Uwe. “Rights, Liability, and the Moral Equality
of Combatants” The Journal of Ethics;
Dordrecht Vol. 16, Iss. 4,
https://search-proquest-com.proxy169.nclive.org
© Odetayo Odedere
No comments:
Post a Comment