Paths of Good Intentions

I was talking to some people online about national actions and good intentions. It was argued that the United States doesn't have good intentions and that it doesn't act sufficiently selflessly. It was argued that we should hold nations up to higher standards, because those nations that act in their own self-interest are immoral and evil. I disagreed, not because I support selfishness, but because I thought it was an unrealistic standard. I was asked what my definition of "good intentions" would be, and here was my reply:

I'd say that people in general have good intentions, as do nations, but there are also going to be ulterior motives at play. That's just human nature. We act in our own best interest, and indeed our democratically-elected representatives are expected to prioritize national interests.

What this means is that we do what we can, and we're trying to do better, but it is impossible to expect a nation to always act for the "global good" (whatever that may be).

The Rwandan wars and genocides are a perfect example of the complexity of national actions and ethics versus their abilities and responsibilities. The whole stems out of such a complex interaction of causes and effects that it is impossible to determine who is in the right.

The Belgians had brutally colonized the country, established a racist system of government that engendered hate on all sides, and then tried to rectify the situation by splitting the country in two. However, by doing so it led directly to war and genocide. When the Belgians saw what was happening, they evacuated all the whites and quietly took their leave.

The Belgian actions created a civil war in the name of democracy and independence, and each side of the conflict committed genocide upon the other, driving the others across the country at the point of a sword. A power-sharing agreement was put into place when the dust settled, but it still left two million Hutu refugees with many militias intermingled. The UN asks for help, but everyone recognizes that the whole thing is such a shit storm that no one wants to get involved. The U.S. didn't put troops on the ground to deliver security, but it did deliver food directly and via NGOs. Israel, France and a small contingent of European nations offered medical care and a limited amount of security.

Those resources then caused riots and deaths and were abused by the militia to exert control. Recognizing such, the U.S., the NGOs and the other Western nations left. Many more refugees died of disease, and political instability further empowered the militias. The UN called for support, and no others wanted to get involved. After asking 40 other nations, Cold War anti-communist and then-dictator of Zaire, Mobuto Seko, offered troops to instill some level of security. It worked for a limited amount of time, but when Zaire's political instability became too great it spread to Rwanda and set off the genocide and two of the deadliest wars since World War II.

Congo, Uganda, and other neighboring countries get involved. Many different militias get involved. Leaders from all backgrounds get involved. Some help, such as the now-famous Canadian general Romeo Dallaire. Some worsen the situation. Eventually the sheer amount of death and destruction seemed to bring the remaining warring parties together to create coalition government that still has huge problems. There's still so many resistant militias out in the forest that some consider the civil war to still continue. A war that started, in many ways, back in 1963, with the end of colonial rule. Between two groups whose differences are extremely arbitrary, and are really just a function of history rather than culture or race.

Who are the good guys and who are the bad ones? Belgium, France, Israel and the U.S. are the only nations in the world to contribute significantly to halt the fighting, and they all have been simultaneously lambasted for making it worse, and for not doing more. Were they in the wrong for trying to help out? Was Belgium in the wrong for granting independence in the first place? These questions don't have satisfactory answers, and they just aren't useful.

For the UN and the NGOs this was a huge crisis of conscience, and displayed the limitations inherent in institutions that operate without cooperation with military forces. They withdrew from a nation that needed them most, because they thought they were making it worse. And then, after reorganizing and reexamining their mandate, they did it again in Sudan.

So who should we assume had good intentions? I don't think it matters that much. I'm sure most did, but then again the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Fundamentally the people who started the wars didn't have motivations particularly different from the ones who ended it, they just had a different perspective. No one was completely blameless in this mess, but most had motivations that were seated in ending the genocide.

If I've learned anything about politics, is that it is best to not spend a lot of time questioning the motivations, and to focus on moving forward towards solutions that people can agree on. It's nice to be able to sit down and point fingers and blame people for this and that, but it doesn't really get anywhere productive because everyone is guilty of mistakes, and things always end up turning out unexpectedly, particularly in a war. Peace is a better goal than moral victory, and in 20 years they can set up a Truth and Reconciliation commission to try and work out the ghosts.

So what is my definition of "good intentions"? It's trying to make things better for those you care about, hopefully without hurting too many people in the process. I think that's the only real standard that's worth anything. Judging people's morals by the results of their actions is a crapshoot.