I am asking Carrol and Yoshie what position the left should have taken on this. Carrol posed the the idea that US inaction here created an argumnent for US action elsewhere because (it might be thought) Us action here would have been warranted. This is not crazy. And Rwanda does provide a real hard case for my US Out Of Everywhere! absolutism. I used to say that the failure of the US to intervene there, when it might have done some good, puts paid to the idea that so-called humanitarian imperialism was anything but a cover for a great power politics. But let me be more precise. Should leftists have supported a _UN_ intervention in Rwanda? Ought there be a resolution on the floor authorizing the UN to act militarility in a limited way to stop the next genocide on credible evidence of mass killing?
I mean. it's all very well to say with Yoshie that we organize against US imperialism we will lower the likelihood that such a genocide will occur. That is true. But we know that it will occur, and probably fairly soon, though it cannot be predicted just where. Maybe the West Bank and Gaza . . . ? Though there is no chance that the "international community" would act against Israel, natch. Is it opposed to internationalist, anti-imperialist, and left principles to have international action (by imperialist powers--who else could it?) to stop the killing?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com