“Kuwait’s high court dismissed an appeal by Kuwaiti women who had hoped that the court would rule that parliament’s refusal to allow them the vote was unconstitutional.”
News Item from the Economist Magazine (July 1 - July 7).
It appears as though only half of Kuwaits population was liberated in the Gulf War. Considering the substantial International effort in liberating Kuwait, should the International community have the right to influence Kuwaiti law in matters such as this? Or is this an internal Kuwaiti matter which the International community should stay away from. Could this be considered a humanitarian issue?
My practical reaction is that there are places that are worse for women. Conditions in Afghanistan are more opressive than anything we can even think of (although there are two sides to every story).
My cynical reaction is that we liberated the oil and that was all we needed. We sure didn’t help out the Kurds.
My final thought-out answer is that things work strangely when you have a less than stable government. Our best bet is to let the dust settle and see how conditions really are. As femminist as my views are…not voting seems paltry when compared to not being able to leave your house, go to school, or even be seen by a doctor as is the case with many women in Afghanistan. If we are going to apply international pressure on anyone it would be them. But yes, I belive we should put pressure on people who opress women in the same way that we put pressure on people who opress people of different ethnic groups.
Hmmm,interesting. As far as i know, the social position and legal standing of women in Kuwait was little different under Saddam then it was before or after his invasion so I’m not sure women were liberated.
Kuwait was created when the region was divided up as the British left and, being ruled by a King/Crown prince/Whatever, has always been a stranger to democracy.
Re: The substantial international effort. Two issue’s
(1) They’ve got the oil, we need our regular fix, who influences who ?
(2) Centre piece of US foreign policy post-WW2 has been to keep the Arab’s divided amongst themselves (takes some of the pressure off Israel, ensures at least some oil keeps flowing). The women of Kuwait come some way down the list of priorities.
Successfully putting (1) and (2) together gets you the big chair at Langley.
Let’s understand what the war was about. Not the defeat of aggression. Oil. The war liberated the ground and the oil under it and protected Saudi Arabia and the oil under IT.
We didn’t free any people form the constraints of a dictatorship. We merely restored the original dictator to power.
The war was NOT about oil, we could have happily bought the oil from Saddam, and before the war, did so. It was the only actual invasion of a soveriegn nation by another, in recent times, and just the sort of thing we are supposed to stop. And so, at the urging and assistance of most of the Free world, we did so. Now, true, we might not have done so if there was no oil, AND Saddam had not been so stupid as to actually INVADE. As any dictator knows, the RIGHT way to do these things is to foster a revolt, and then send increasing aid to assist the revolt. Thus confusing the issue JUST enuf so the UN & US CAN ignore it, if they want to. Saddam was just so arrogant he really thought he could beat the US.
As to the vote for women, we should and can “lean” on them, as they “owe” us, but we should not directly interfere.
There are some good replies here, but the answers don’t quite address the question.
The OP didn’t ask why the allies liberated Kuwait. The question was, as Kuwait was liberated by the International Community, does the International community have a say in the Internal affairs of Kuwait? In this case, pressure them to give women the vote.
Sure, countries are free to pressure them to change. They would have been free to pressure them without having aided them against a foreign army. It doesn’t mean that they’ll listen though.
Other nations put pressure on the US all the time. Japan sent over a petetion with over 1,000,000 signatures asking us to make guns more restricted. There’s pressure from European and other nations regarding our proposed plan for a missile defense system.
Yes I agree that it is constantly going on. However, Kuwait was liberated. I’m not sure if I’m expressing my self clearly enough. Should the Liberator have a say in the Internal affairs of the Liberated? After all, the allies are still their defending the borders. Why not pressure them to change. Perhaps something like; “Hey, we saved your butt and we remain here protecting your country from the nut next door, now we want you to change your voting laws to allow women.”
Historical precedence surely says that we have a say. We have had no problem setting up countries in the way that we like after a war, although it is usually the defeated country that we order around. Methinks that our concerns are usually economic, however, and voting rights have not really been our concern.
That said, I think that a “liberater” should have very limited influence in the country. We can’t treat the “liberated” country like we treat countries that we defeat. Telling them how to run their government would be colonialism, and it would also make us jerks. It’s lame to save someone’s butt and then expect them to cater to your every wish. I guess we should treat them like we would any other country.
I agree to a certain extent. In the Kuwaiti case the argument can be made that the Kuwaiti women were also liberated and as such the we demand the representation of Kuwaiti women in the Kuwaiti Government.
Certainly the West could pressure Kuwait into becoming a Swiss-style direct democracy if it wanted to. The fact, however, is that the Western powers couldn’t care less what happens in any of the places it “liberates” as long as the economics and global politics are the way they are supposed to be.
Additionally, Kuwait might be very grateful for the Allied nations’ intervention in securing its sovereignty, but turning round and demanding a change in their political culture isn’t likely to help that ‘friendship’. If the US and other western nations want to maintain a strong Gulf presence, alienating allies there won’t help.
US: We want you to give the Kuwaiti women the vote.
Kuwait: How much do you want to pay ?
US: For the oil or the voting rights?
Kuwait: They’re the same question.
In response to the OP. Of course we should. there are lots of things the US should do that it doesn’t.
Is there a chance in hell that it would ever happen. No.
Why? Because, as others pointed out it wasn’t about preserving democracy.
Let’s approach the OP with something like spirited idealistic debate, rather than argument chilling cynicism.
The OP proposes the following tenet: A country which owes its existence to the international community (or some portion thereof) should allow that community (or said portion) interfere in its internal affairs.
Questions:
Who gets to decide how the ‘saved’ country shall be changed?
E.g.: Saudi Arabia was quite thouroughly involved in the effort to liberate Kuwait; indeed I note that no missiles were falling on US cities (our troops, yes, cities, no). Yet I am sure Saudi Arabia would be quite unwilling to enforce a policy in Kuwait that provided for Women’s Sufferage. Who decides?
To what extent is it desirable that the various nations of the world be identical in governance?
E.g.: Can Russia survive as a US style democracy, with its splintered ethnic tensions and infatuation with strong-fisted leaders? Should Islamic countries have laws and rights identical to secular Christian countries? Should the US outlaw the death penalty, as many of our contemporary Western Democracies constantly urge us to do?
What will we do if the saved country DOESN’T do what we, the saviours, want?
Why on earth would anyone agree to that tenet, DSYoungEsq? The US was safeguarding oil interests as part of the operation (however much other reasons played a part), so to claim the moral high ground would quickly alienate current allies. After all, if the US is going to demand a say in your government for any future help, why not make friends elsewhere?
Other reasons why it’s a bad idea:
/ Cultural imperialism. The US says women should have the vote. Kuwait doesn’t. Are you suggesting that the ‘big brother’ who helps you out has the right to overrule your religious, cultural, political and social norms?
/ How do you prove that a country ‘owes its existence’ to another? And, as you say, how do you identify the country who helped? What if the UN did it as a joint effort – how do you propose governing the undoubtedly-grateful liberatee?
/ If the liberated country doesn’t do as asked, what do you do? Invade? Make yourself the bad guy, so someone else can ‘liberate’ them?
…in addition to the possible hiccups you point out.
The big kicker: assuming that international intervention in situations such as Kuwait’s occupation is largely about returning sovereignty to the rightful government, this suggestion would immediately remove that sovereignty. You’d be saved from one oppressor/occupier to be delivered into the arms of another, effectively (in terms of the power your government wields).
Here would be my suggestions to answer DSYoungEsq’s questions (DSYoungEsq’s statements are in italics)
1) Who gets to decide how the ‘saved’ country shall be changed?
It should be the United Nations, or a similar group uniting the community that helped “liberate” the nations. (e.g. the European Union if, for example, countries in the European Union decided to stop a war in a Balkan country.) The “committee” would of course also include representatives of different political parties or other groups from the “liberated” country.
2) To what extent is it desirable that the various nations of the world be identical in governance?
At the minimum to respect human rights treaties adopted by the United Nations, e.g. Universal declaration of human rights and others
(see HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATIONS of the United Nations)
3) What will we do if the saved country DOESN’T do what we, the saviours, want?
I don’t have a good answer here. I suppose right now I can’t think of any solution except what was done in the case of for example South Africa: economic sanctions, shunning by the international community, pressure by other governments, and military action in the case of egregious violations (for example a genocide.)
Thus confusing the issue JUST enuf so the UN & US CAN ignore it, if they want to. Saddam was just so arrogant he really thought he could beat the US.
