It's unfortunate that Kouchner didn't seem to realise that Ledwidge and Menon weren't contesting his point. I think if someone had clearly communicated the difference in terms he could have made more compelling contributions. As it stood he felt the need to repeatedly defend his own life's work which everyone fully supported.
Particularly in his closing statement where he accused the other side of saying his work was wasted effort. Oh well, that's what you get when the French argue in English.
There should have been a clearer definition of humanitarian intervention before the debate started. If the issue was military and political, then both sides should have featured experts in that dimension. It is odd to get someone from Doctor's Without Borders to argue against the proposal, and expect him not to focus on public humanitarian aid, which is his expertise. And then you have a military officer on the other side, so of course he is going to focus on the military aspect, which is his expertise. The sides should have been balanced with experts of the same fields. It also seemed as if the side arguing against the proposition was only arguing that it is good sometimes, but didn't really ever seem to make an argument to say that it is good more often than it is bad. And when on the topic of when military intervention doesn't work, they seemed to either discount it as not true humanitarian intervention, or that it was done too poorly to count as an example, because it could have worked in an ideal sense. I think both sides seemed to agree that military intervention is often bad, and that public humanitarian aid is almost always good, but they couldn't really seem to bring both aspects together in a cohesive argument to say whether--in total--it works more often than it fails.
In debates in this subject, there is always the passioned heart strings of emotion, that argue that humanitarian intervention is morally necessary. They always include Dr’s without Borders to showcase and champion the cause. Although military and humanitarian intervention are two quite different things (that is pointed out every time) they fail to acknowledge that often times the “humanitarian” buzzword is only a cover for a military, political act. We have seen this all the way back to the Contra situation, we saw it in Libya. Until that reality is owned, we will forever be debating from two different ends of the spectrum.
Kori is not the voice of Americans. When is speaks of Americans having no problem with increasing troops around the world, she is speaking from a partisan perspective, from the perspective of those who supported 45’s foreign policy stand.. that is in no way the majority of Americans.
Agreed. The debate was somewhat fruitless because the debaters weren't made to agree on what the debate was about. This could have been addressed by the moderator, although there were some language issues that made this more difficult than usual. That said, I still enjoyed the talk, and am thankful that Intelligence Squared provides a forum for debate regarding these important topics.
I think Kouchner would have understood "Humanitarian Interfence Does More Harm Than Good", which litteral French translation (Ingérence humanitaire) is more adapted to the debate, even though these words are not used in the English language. Please pardon my poor English.
It happens a lot on this show where the opposing sides end up arguing something that's entirely orthogonal to the other side's position. I think that before each show, there should be some communication with the debaters to establish what position they're intending to argue, so that this confusion doesn't happen.
So sad that Bernard Kouchner, and to a certain extent Kori Schake refused to engage the arguments of those supporting the motion. I came in as supporter and was hoping to have my views challenged. They were not.
Lazy, trendy, mostly debunked argument. How exactly are humanitarians extracting the vast majority of the resources from the people and the places where they work? Imperialism and colonialism was about domination to pillage and subjugate. That still exists (Ukraine is a good current-day example) and the humanitarians there aren't helping Putin. Fuck, in many places modern humanitarians work they're trying to help people dominated and pillaged by would-be imperialists that come from those people's own cultures and countries.
The tremendous violence that the USA, NATO, and Israel have done and are doing to the People around the world has been infecting the psyche of people all around the world making them more violent. Only Peace can bring Peace into being.
The dynastic plutocratic families, the corporate oligarchs, the international banksters, many of whom are Zionists (like the Neocons and members of AIPAC) and/or members of secret societies, who dominate the politicians and the legal system and the financial system and the mainstream media and the corporations and the police and the military, have been wreaking havoc upon the People, both here and abroad, and upon our beloved Mother Earth, for decades. We must enter the seats of public service. We must make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise among us become our public servants. Then we will be in a position to change the laws and reign in the intelligence agencies, the police, and military. Then the way will be clear to implement the gazillions of practical creative solutions we already have on a grand scale and to finally begin the process of transitioning to a Whole New Way of Living rooted in Love and Wisdom without any need for government So what's missing? PEOPLE...at least 80 million individuals who are well-informed, free of misinformation and disinformation, on all the major issues of today AND who are devoting their time, energy, resources and talents to the political process. Since 2010, i've been waking up and mentoring around 10 NEW uninformed/misinformed individuals every week, helping them become well-informed, free of misinformation and disinformation, on all the major issues of today AND inspiring them to give their time, energy, talents, and resources to the political process to make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise among us become our public servants. It is imperative that each and every one of us, without exception, does the same. If you can't do 10, do 5. If you can't do 5, do 3. Then make sure each one of them does the same. Just don't do nothing.
Here's my proposal: First the cities, then the states, then the nation and then the world. See my group on FB called "Creating a Wonderful World. (let's get it done already)".
This debate was poorly framed. Clearly both Kori and the opposing side agreed that we should neither embrace military intervention and/or humanitarian intervention with a leap of faith, nor should we forget it all together. Those three believe that it just depends on the given situation and that you gotta run the numbers in order to Determine the best course of action
828 views in one day. Clearly, the public doesn't care either way. The side against the motion is arguing a position that is purely idealistic, not realistic, for my 2 cents.
I mostly agree with you Privilege is a matter of perspective. Not only is privilege relative but there are a multitude of them. Pick your metric eg mod cons or libraries or clean water. Choose a reference point. Technological advances and civil liberties are utopian achievements in and of themselves and its important to appreciate how far we've come. Still there are a ways to go. We face many issues in the west today despite the fact that the majority of us have wifi and freedom of speech. Its also true some people are suffering hardships today (and have in the past) that we will never experience through sheer luck To clarify (in my original comment) i felt the need to highlight a concern of mine. In most IQ2 debates (especially in Britain), the crowds are much bigger. (The Emmanuel Center's auditorium in London seats a thousand people!!) Statistically, the law of large numbers mean that the bigger the sample size the more accurate (realistic) the result. Think of it as the 'wisdom of the crowd'. On the other hand ,small samples (the law of small numbers) yield extreme (distorted) results. In this case i felt that the verdict (voted by roughly 60 to 70) was skewed and poorly reflected public consensus on an important issue. That being said, im not too sure what amount would constitute as a truly representative sample? (Maybe you can shed some light here) Moreover one could argue over whether metropolitan audiences are reliable barometers of national public opinion. PS - i apologies if i came across as ungrateful or conceited in my first comment. It was not my intention.
Dr. Schake, who I believe was a professor of mine in College Park and who I'm thrilled to see in this debate, brought up this idea of "leveling the playing field" in this case as it applies to Syria. I think this is a problem with the political humanitarian mindset that she represents. Watching a plucky group of underdogs get steamrolled, especially by a government force that you have irreconcilable disagreements with, calls for a humanitarian intervention directly to your soul. Seeing an army, especially one you don't like, preparing for a siege of a city is very hard to stand by and watch because you know that this is leading to a lot of death and destruction, much of it to undeserving people. The problem though is that while it feels good to support the rebels and lighten the death toll in the short term, what is actually happening is that the war is being extended as the defenders have an opportunity to dig in and the mobile attackers are forced to do the same. Now the war moves at a snail's pace with years and years of death and destruction. Libya is a classic case where the consequences of allowing Qadaffi to take Benghazi would have been horrifying and soul sickening and at the same time much less destructive than the results we ended up with, a countrywide civil war pitting Qadaffi's black African mercenaries against his opponent's white Euro-American mercenaries, a country with no real government for at least half a decade and a human-traficking wonderland that has resurrected the African slave trade and led thousands to drown on a sometimes forced/sometimes desperate fools voyage across the sea to a land that hypocritically doesn't have the humanitarian compassion to take them in. In Syria our continued support for rebels, and more importantly the support of the gulf states, has turned what would've been a slaughter of thousands into the death of a million with a corresponding diaspora and global political destabilization. I think that if we look at this with clear eyes the debate is about whether the righteous allowance of death of millions coupled with long-term wide-spread chaotic suffering is better for us first-worlders than the callous allowance of deaths of thousands coupled with an orderly return to normalcy under the auspices of a repressive authoritarian regime that we may not have much influence over.
“….hypocritically doesn't have the humanitarian compassion to take them in”. Surely there are economic, social and cultural factors which limit the number of refugees that a host nation can support when refugeees arrive in uncontrolled numbers and circumstances. An unmanaged influx of refugees creates a chaotic situation and a most unfortunate outcome for both the citizens and governments of host nations and the refugees. Look what is happening in some of the European nations now and, indeed, in the Middle East itself.
Surely a government should take those likely consequences into account before undermining a neighboring government. To destroy the institutions of order within a country without either replacing them in their entirety (which includes long-term sufficient staffing and financing), or taking in the collateral refugees in their entirety is, in my mind, deeply hypocritical and woefully insufficiently compassionate. And really, this is the meat of the debate. The consequences of humanitarian intervention is the destruction of another society's institutions of order. That may be appropriate in rare instances, but it's always costly and if the interventionist force isn't willing to cover the entire cost of their intervention than in most cases they will be doing more harm than good.
Not trying to be dismissive here but I'm not sure what exactly you think is naive. If you're talking about absorption of refugees, carte blanche acceptance would be fair and just, but not necessarily practical without a lot of domestic disruption. Of course that level of domestic disruption pales in comparison to the domestic disruption visited on the citizenry of a collapsed state. Therefore if a country is unwilling to take on that admittedly onerous burden then it is irresponsible to knowingly create the circumstances that would lead to the dissolution of another state. And if a country or an organization believes that supporting dissidents and rebellions won't create that situation, then they are the ones being naive.
Alan Friesen It only creates a hazard if the collapsed nation is nearby, e.g., Libya. Also, AFAIK places like Hungary and Czechia had little to no involvement in the undermining of Libya, yet would be at risk of domestic instability had they accepted waves of immigrants as the complicit EU demanded, many of whom weren't even refugees from the Libyan debacle.
I feel that the moderator took a bit too active a role in the debate. It seemed to me that he recreated every single question asked by the audience, and in some cases, made points on behalf of those debating.
43:00...US's fault for not stepping in...Why is it our problem? Not trying to be rude about it, but seriously, why is everything our fault? Like they said in the beginning, we give more relief around the world than anyone else. Stand up in your own country and make change. We will help, but take some responsibility for your own country's well being. You dont like what is going on, stand up and fight for your rights.
When you say “stand up in your own country and make change”, in what type of country? How is that country run? What do you suggest that the people do then? Do you think that the average citizen is a representative of or has any say something like in a dictatorship? If you had paid any attention to the human rights atrocities committed against Syria’s own people you would see that they cannot “stand up” or “make change” because any attempts would probably lead to their death. Take the pro-democracy protests that took place in Syria for example, many were killed/imprisoned/tortured for their defiance of the government. Make note that I’m talking about those that tried to rebel against the government, not even the average citizen that would have just wanted to make it out of the turmoil, yet many of them killed via atrocious chemical attacks.
It's unfortunate that Kouchner didn't seem to realise that Ledwidge and Menon weren't contesting his point. I think if someone had clearly communicated the difference in terms he could have made more compelling contributions. As it stood he felt the need to repeatedly defend his own life's work which everyone fully supported.
Particularly in his closing statement where he accused the other side of saying his work was wasted effort. Oh well, that's what you get when the French argue in English.
He has been accused of some serious wrong doings.
There should have been a clearer definition of humanitarian intervention before the debate started. If the issue was military and political, then both sides should have featured experts in that dimension. It is odd to get someone from Doctor's Without Borders to argue against the proposal, and expect him not to focus on public humanitarian aid, which is his expertise. And then you have a military officer on the other side, so of course he is going to focus on the military aspect, which is his expertise. The sides should have been balanced with experts of the same fields.
It also seemed as if the side arguing against the proposition was only arguing that it is good sometimes, but didn't really ever seem to make an argument to say that it is good more often than it is bad. And when on the topic of when military intervention doesn't work, they seemed to either discount it as not true humanitarian intervention, or that it was done too poorly to count as an example, because it could have worked in an ideal sense.
I think both sides seemed to agree that military intervention is often bad, and that public humanitarian aid is almost always good, but they couldn't really seem to bring both aspects together in a cohesive argument to say whether--in total--it works more often than it fails.
In debates in this subject, there is always the passioned heart strings of emotion, that argue that humanitarian intervention is morally necessary. They always include Dr’s without Borders to showcase and champion the cause. Although military and humanitarian intervention are two quite different things (that is pointed out every time) they fail to acknowledge that often times the “humanitarian” buzzword is only a cover for a military, political act. We have seen this all the way back to the Contra situation, we saw it in Libya. Until that reality is owned, we will forever be debating from two different ends of the spectrum.
Kori is not the voice of Americans. When is speaks of Americans having no problem with increasing troops around the world, she is speaking from a partisan perspective, from the perspective of those who supported 45’s foreign policy stand.. that is in no way the majority of Americans.
Should've been "Military Intervention Does More Harm Than Good".
I agree. Felt like there was two debates going on for most of this.
No, it was aptly titled. Humanitarian guise, military reality. That's the rule.
Agreed. The debate was somewhat fruitless because the debaters weren't made to agree on what the debate was about. This could have been addressed by the moderator, although there were some language issues that made this more difficult than usual. That said, I still enjoyed the talk, and am thankful that Intelligence Squared provides a forum for debate regarding these important topics.
I think Kouchner would have understood "Humanitarian Interfence Does More Harm Than Good", which litteral French translation (Ingérence humanitaire) is more adapted to the debate, even though these words are not used in the English language. Please pardon my poor English.
It happens a lot on this show where the opposing sides end up arguing something that's entirely orthogonal to the other side's position. I think that before each show, there should be some communication with the debaters to establish what position they're intending to argue, so that this confusion doesn't happen.
So sad that Bernard Kouchner, and to a certain extent Kori Schake refused to engage the arguments of those supporting the motion. I came in as supporter and was hoping to have my views challenged. They were not.
i understand both sides but i would like for them to talk about alernative solution
So-called "humanitarian intervention" is just western imperialism and colonialism with a new name.
Lazy, trendy, mostly debunked argument. How exactly are humanitarians extracting the vast majority of the resources from the people and the places where they work? Imperialism and colonialism was about domination to pillage and subjugate. That still exists (Ukraine is a good current-day example) and the humanitarians there aren't helping Putin. Fuck, in many places modern humanitarians work they're trying to help people dominated and pillaged by would-be imperialists that come from those people's own cultures and countries.
Violence breeds violence. This is a statement of fact and not a justification of violence.
The tremendous violence that the USA, NATO, and Israel have done and are doing to the People around the world has been infecting the psyche of people all around the world making them more violent. Only Peace can bring Peace into being.
The dynastic plutocratic families, the corporate oligarchs, the international banksters, many of whom are Zionists (like the Neocons and members of AIPAC) and/or members of secret societies, who dominate the politicians and the legal system and the financial system and the mainstream media and the corporations and the police and the military, have been wreaking havoc upon the People, both here and abroad, and upon our beloved Mother Earth, for decades.
We must enter the seats of public service. We must make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise among us become our public servants.
Then we will be in a position to change the laws and reign in the intelligence agencies, the police, and military.
Then the way will be clear to implement the gazillions of practical creative solutions we already have on a grand scale and to finally begin the process of transitioning to a Whole New Way of Living rooted in Love and Wisdom without any need for government
So what's missing? PEOPLE...at least 80 million individuals who are well-informed, free of misinformation and disinformation, on all the major issues of today AND who are devoting their time, energy, resources and talents to the political process.
Since 2010, i've been waking up and mentoring around 10 NEW uninformed/misinformed individuals every week, helping them become well-informed, free of misinformation and disinformation, on all the major issues of today AND inspiring them to give their time, energy, talents, and resources to the political process to make sure that only the most Loving/most Wise among us become our public servants.
It is imperative that each and every one of us, without exception, does the same. If you can't do 10, do 5. If you can't do 5, do 3. Then make sure each one of them does the same. Just don't do nothing.
Here's my proposal: First the cities, then the states, then the nation and then the world. See my group on FB called "Creating a Wonderful World. (let's get it done already)".
This debate was poorly framed. Clearly both Kori and the opposing side agreed that we should neither embrace military intervention and/or humanitarian intervention with a leap of faith, nor should we forget it all together. Those three believe that it just depends on the given situation and that you gotta run the numbers in order to Determine the best course of action
828 views in one day. Clearly, the public doesn't care either way. The side against the motion is arguing a position that is purely idealistic, not realistic, for my 2 cents.
Perhaps The initial statement might have better been phrased: "Military Led Humanitarian Intervention Does More Harm Than Good."
Also... if there is military intervention it seems better as a coalition of multiple nations.
@@RAYMONDFORCHIONFILM "Humanitarian" seems to be a cover for ulterior motives.
If there isn’t military intervention in prior none states or nation may need humanitarian intervention at all.
This was one great debate.
i like the new stage format. debaters get to walk around to express themselves better.
This could have been put together better for a more accurate and on topic discussion
i have a sneaking suspicion that this privileged audience did not fairly reflect the public.
I mostly agree with you Privilege is a matter of perspective. Not only is privilege relative but there are a multitude of them. Pick your metric eg mod cons or libraries or clean water. Choose a reference point. Technological advances and civil liberties are utopian achievements in and of themselves and its important to appreciate how far we've come. Still there are a ways to go. We face many issues in the west today despite the fact that the majority of us have wifi and freedom of speech. Its also true some people are suffering hardships today (and have in the past) that we will never experience through sheer luck
To clarify (in my original comment) i felt the need to highlight a concern of mine. In most IQ2 debates (especially in Britain), the crowds are much bigger. (The Emmanuel Center's auditorium in London seats a thousand people!!) Statistically, the law of large numbers mean that the bigger the sample size the more accurate (realistic) the result. Think of it as the 'wisdom of the crowd'. On the other hand ,small samples (the law of small numbers) yield extreme (distorted) results. In this case i felt that the verdict (voted by roughly 60 to 70) was skewed and poorly reflected public consensus on an important issue.
That being said, im not too sure what amount would constitute as a truly representative sample? (Maybe you can shed some light here) Moreover one could argue over whether metropolitan audiences are reliable barometers of national public opinion.
PS - i apologies if i came across as ungrateful or conceited in my first comment. It was not my intention.
Dears first the agenda not specified there are deference between military intervention and without military intervention
Dr. Schake, who I believe was a professor of mine in College Park and who I'm thrilled to see in this debate, brought up this idea of "leveling the playing field" in this case as it applies to Syria. I think this is a problem with the political humanitarian mindset that she represents. Watching a plucky group of underdogs get steamrolled, especially by a government force that you have irreconcilable disagreements with, calls for a humanitarian intervention directly to your soul. Seeing an army, especially one you don't like, preparing for a siege of a city is very hard to stand by and watch because you know that this is leading to a lot of death and destruction, much of it to undeserving people. The problem though is that while it feels good to support the rebels and lighten the death toll in the short term, what is actually happening is that the war is being extended as the defenders have an opportunity to dig in and the mobile attackers are forced to do the same. Now the war moves at a snail's pace with years and years of death and destruction.
Libya is a classic case where the consequences of allowing Qadaffi to take Benghazi would have been horrifying and soul sickening and at the same time much less destructive than the results we ended up with, a countrywide civil war pitting Qadaffi's black African mercenaries against his opponent's white Euro-American mercenaries, a country with no real government for at least half a decade and a human-traficking wonderland that has resurrected the African slave trade and led thousands to drown on a sometimes forced/sometimes desperate fools voyage across the sea to a land that hypocritically doesn't have the humanitarian compassion to take them in. In Syria our continued support for rebels, and more importantly the support of the gulf states, has turned what would've been a slaughter of thousands into the death of a million with a corresponding diaspora and global political destabilization. I think that if we look at this with clear eyes the debate is about whether the righteous allowance of death of millions coupled with long-term wide-spread chaotic suffering is better for us first-worlders than the callous allowance of deaths of thousands coupled with an orderly return to normalcy under the auspices of a repressive authoritarian regime that we may not have much influence over.
“….hypocritically doesn't have the humanitarian compassion to take them in”.
Surely there are economic, social and cultural factors which limit the number of refugees that a host nation can support when refugeees arrive in uncontrolled numbers and circumstances. An unmanaged influx of refugees creates a chaotic situation and a most unfortunate outcome for both the citizens and governments of host nations and the refugees. Look what is happening in some of the European nations now and, indeed, in the Middle East itself.
Surely a government should take those likely consequences into account before undermining a neighboring government. To destroy the institutions of order within a country without either replacing them in their entirety (which includes long-term sufficient staffing and financing), or taking in the collateral refugees in their entirety is, in my mind, deeply hypocritical and woefully insufficiently compassionate. And really, this is the meat of the debate. The consequences of humanitarian intervention is the destruction of another society's institutions of order. That may be appropriate in rare instances, but it's always costly and if the interventionist force isn't willing to cover the entire cost of their intervention than in most cases they will be doing more harm than good.
Alan, that seems like a naive view. When has that ever happened, or would ever happen!
Not trying to be dismissive here but I'm not sure what exactly you think is naive. If you're talking about absorption of refugees, carte blanche acceptance would be fair and just, but not necessarily practical without a lot of domestic disruption. Of course that level of domestic disruption pales in comparison to the domestic disruption visited on the citizenry of a collapsed state. Therefore if a country is unwilling to take on that admittedly onerous burden then it is irresponsible to knowingly create the circumstances that would lead to the dissolution of another state. And if a country or an organization believes that supporting dissidents and rebellions won't create that situation, then they are the ones being naive.
Alan Friesen
It only creates a hazard if the collapsed nation is nearby, e.g., Libya. Also, AFAIK places like Hungary and Czechia had little to no involvement in the undermining of Libya, yet would be at risk of domestic instability had they accepted waves of immigrants as the complicit EU demanded, many of whom weren't even refugees from the Libyan debacle.
I feel that the moderator took a bit too active a role in the debate. It seemed to me that he recreated every single question asked by the audience, and in some cases, made points on behalf of those debating.
French boy was waffling baree💀🤭
Why nobody explained the rules to Kushner?
He always barks.
Here for Homework lol
me too right😭and it's already due
43:00...US's fault for not stepping in...Why is it our problem? Not trying to be rude about it, but seriously, why is everything our fault? Like they said in the beginning, we give more relief around the world than anyone else. Stand up in your own country and make change. We will help, but take some responsibility for your own country's well being. You dont like what is going on, stand up and fight for your rights.
Well, they stood up in Cuba ansnd Vietnam.
When you say “stand up in your own country and make change”, in what type of country? How is that country run? What do you suggest that the people do then? Do you think that the average citizen is a representative of or has any say something like in a dictatorship? If you had paid any attention to the human rights atrocities committed against Syria’s own people you would see that they cannot “stand up” or “make change” because any attempts would probably lead to their death. Take the pro-democracy protests that took place in Syria for example, many were killed/imprisoned/tortured for their defiance of the government. Make note that I’m talking about those that tried to rebel against the government, not even the average citizen that would have just wanted to make it out of the turmoil, yet many of them killed via atrocious chemical attacks.
Name one intervention in the last 20 years,Kori:1991 Kurdish teritorry