Humanitarian Interventions?

Genuine humanitarian intervention would often be a good thing. And it is often quite easy. Right now there is much soul-searching and self-flagellation on the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda massacre, when the West would not intervene to stop it. For 100 days, people were killed at the rate of about 8000 a day. That happens be about the number of children who die every day in Southern Africa from easily treatable diseases. That's Rwanda-level killing every day, not for 100 days, but constantly. And it's far easier to stop than sending troops to Rwanda. All that's necessary is to spend pennies a day to bribe drug companies to produce the needed remedies, instead of doing what they are required to do by law: maximize profits by producing "life-style drugs" for the rich rather than life-saving drugs for the poor. That would suffice to stop ongoing Rwanda-style killing--again, not just for 100 days, and just among children in one region. Is anyone doing it? What does that tell us about the alleged humanitarian concerns over Rwanda? Or Darfur? Or... What it tells us, loud and clear, is that humanitarian concerns are wonderful as long as it's someone else's crimes and we do not have to do anything about them apart from striking heroic poses.

- from Turning the Tide, the Noam Chomsky Weblog