Well, it turns out that we haven't found any WMD yet. And it also turns out that we don't care. The liberation of the Iraqi peoples is a noble goal in and of itself, and we should be satisfied with that. But, of course, one might ask if we are now required to rescue other peoples throughout the world. Paul Krugman, is one such "one" who asks, in his latest article.
. . . why is our compassion so selective? In 2001 the World Health Organization — the same organization we now count on to protect us from SARS — called for a program to fight infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing that it would save the lives of millions of people every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would have been about $10 billion per year — a small fraction of what we will spend on war and occupation. Yet the Bush administration contemptuously dismissed the proposal.
Or consider one of America's first major postwar acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war. The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And that must be true — we wouldn't let innocent people die just to spite the French, would we?
So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi people doesn't extend to suffering people elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of emphasis. A cynic might point out, however, that saving lives peacefully doesn't offer any occasion to stage a victory parade.
For those who would like more information on the Ivory Coast situation, here it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment