LIVING the privileged lives of University students, it often -- if not always -- proves easy to forget the world outside of the "U.Va. bubble." Though we often shy away from issues suggesting a less than perfect world (both on our campus and off) humor me for a moment:
A civil war rages outside your doorstep. Pro-government forces have taken your food supplies and other belongings at gunpoint, and despite the fact that you have not eaten in three days, you cannot exit your home to search for food for fear of being shot in the crossfire. In addition, even if you could find food, prices have risen so high that it is unlikely you could afford to pay them. Sickness is everywhere, and one million of your fellow countrymen are trapped between advancing rebel forces and the Atlantic Ocean.
This is a far cry from our daily lives, that is for certain. It is such a far cry, in fact, that it would easily be possible for us as individuals and as a nation to ignore the fact that this is the reality for over a million innocent people in Liberia right now. We could claim survival of the fittest and allow this "primitive" country with its "primitive" people to destroy itself. We could do that. Or we could help.
There are many reasons not to send peacekeeping and rebuilding aid to this troubled country. Citing serious military commitments elsewhere on the globe, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has politely made clear that he is against it. In addition, many have been quick to note the debacle that occurred in Somalia during the first Bush administration and into the Clinton era. Critics have taken care to note that the U.S. cannot afford to be embarrassed (should Liberia mimic Somalia) at a time when military stakes (notably in Iraq) are high. Finally, arguably weak U.S. incentives, a still unclear peacekeeping and exit strategy and a still stalling economy combine to dissuade U.S. officials from standing up -- perhaps truly, this time -- for human rights.
All of the above arguments seem convincing. According to a certain logic, they are. However, whether they are complete is another question. A question to which the answer is -- quite decidedly -- no.
First and foremost, we must examine the issue of military commitment. Should the United States elect to send aid to Liberia, an estimated 2,000 troops, most of them Marines, would be deployed (or roughly 1/85 the amount of troops in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom). Furthermore, it is expected that the United States would be in Liberia for only a few months, after which time the United Nations, which is pushing for U.S. intervention, would take over. Clearly, to suggest that this relief initiative constitutes a weighty military commitment for the United States is an overstatement.
Secondly, the threat of Liberia becoming another Somalia is minimal. Liberian residents have long been calling for U.S. intervention. In Monrovia, Liberia's capital, thousands of Liberians recently marched behind an American flag, imploring Bush to send aid. Liberia is not nearly as hostile a nation as was Somalia, and thus a comparison of the two situations is questionable. Equally dubious is the expectation that poor American performance in Liberia would have crippling effects on the rebuilding of Iraq. While this is a fair point to some extent, it is a minimal one. The two situations are not truly connected, and there are far more serious issues facing Iraq than what is going on in Africa. In truth, in many parts of Iraq, it is clear that the United States has little to lose in the way of reputation. To use this fear as a justification for shirking human rights concerns would merely confirm what so many criticize about the United States in the first place.
Finally, concerns for the economy and the issue of still unclear strategies constitute the most serious concerns in this situation. However, there is little evidence that this -- honestly, small -- military endeavor will greatly affect the U.S. economy for better or worse, especially in light of the already existing military commitments. Furthermore, so long as the United States takes more effort to formulate an exit strategy (with the already volunteered help of the United Nations) execution does not have to be a problem.
Many argue against aiding Liberia, a nation founded in 1822 by ex-U.S. slaves, due to the fact that it no longer has anything great to give the United States. Even Bush himself, in the 2000 election, spoke out against this type of military endeavor. However, the Bush administration has been attentive to the needs of Africa over the past few years, and this is clearly a move in the right direction. Examining the evidence, it becomes obvious that the United States, by expending a little help, stands to do a lot of good in this situation. Perhaps it is time that we all took a little leap of faith, entertained the possibility that good is possible, that progress is possible, and that maybe, just maybe, the United States is starting to recognize that a stable and healthy global situation benefits everyone. Two thousand troops for a few months is a small price to give over one million people their best shot at freedom. Let's not deny them their chance.
(Laura Parcells is a Cavalier Daily columnist. She can be reached at lparcells@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 6 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 20 hours agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
