Why did the administration decide to take military action now, but previously didn’t act to stop the killing of Shiites and Christians in the same region, or the slaughter of civilians in Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or other places around the world? The answer may have more to do with U.S. strategic interests and geopolitics than ethics.
“What’s driving it is the sense that letting (the Islamic State) burn itself out is not working,” said Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
While the Yazidis’ plight is desperate, Alterman said he could imagine a number of other places in the world where the same number of people being threatened would not provoke a direct U.S. military response.McClatchy
When is it genocide? U.S. interests help decide
Lindsay Wise | McClatchy Washington Bureau
See also, BBC News, West warns Russia against 'aid' mission in Ukraine
The UK and US governments have warned Russia not to use humanitarian assistance as a pretext for sending troops into eastern Ukraine. Any such intervention would be "completely unacceptable and "viewed as an invasion of Ukraine", said the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.
The UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, said: "I strongly urge Russia to avoid any provocative actions".
No comments:
Post a Comment