Luckily this has changed. Men have no power over their wives anymore. Relations inside couples have reshaped and become a sort of between-equals thing. But, what is more important: Nobody thinks a man has full rights to do whatever (except killing, that was the limit) with his family members. Now you have not only the right but you must do something when a man is beating his wife. Society will blame you if you just stand there doing nothing. Things have changed for good.
Somebody tells me. Is there a marriage going on inside a country so you can do nothing when a blood bath is taking place?
I don't want to talk about Irak, because there are so many "other reasons" that the example do not help to my discussion. But I promise I will talk some other day about my impressions on the subject. Yes indeed it is a very interesting issue.
Neither I will use the Rwanda case because everybody agree it was a mistake not to be repeated (the killing limit I was talking about inside a couple).
Let's talk about Afganistan. A country with a goverment whether you like it or not. As many others, is a result of a civil war but a more or less lawful one anyway. China, former U.S.S.R, even the U.S.A. got their first leaders from the war fields.
The rule of thumb is that you must let legal goverments decide how to manage their citizens. And the limit is, once again, that they do not kill...at least not too many people, not directly.
And this was the case. Oppression but not direct extermination. Therefore internal affairs you could say and sadly a lot of politicians too.
I say, like the way we see family business has changed, so relations between countries should change. Everybody is responsible of everything because we live in the same world. The pollution western countries produce does not remain above them in their skies but travels freely among frontiers showing us in the tough way how times have evolve to the globalization, wathever it means.
So, if we are capable of evolve and asume what reality has already brought us, will then see that globalization must reach internal affairs and make them everybody affairs.
Has the USA the right to invade a country? Absolutely no.
But let me rephrase the question: Has the international community the right to do it? Yes. And I say more. There are a lot of cases where it has the obligation, even if the so call problem concerns only to that country and its inhabitants. Because people are human beings before this or that nation's citizens. And so we must ensure its civil rights no matter what.
And now comes my point. I think that the absolute oppression Afgan women suffered was enough to support an intervention to reestablish the equilibrium between what can be seen as the particular cultural behavior of a special region or religion and human rights.
An act of that magnitude is even more justified when it is perfectly clear the oppressed are not able to set them free by their own means. You can not wait forever wondering if things are going to change. You should change them...for good.
One of the first objections to intervention is that of local customs or traditions, and turns into a big unassailable fortress if you are able to disguise it with one of the so call, big religions. Because then the root of the discussion moves toward the eternal fight among civilizations and the original problem seems to disolve in a sea of other reasons, that eventually end with the economical aim to subdue the other religion, culture or race.
A beloved husband could say about the way he treats her beloved wife that he beats her but it is allright, you know, is their custom...their? actually is his. Like was Afgan men practice not to let Afgan women to become emancipated, denying them even the right to a full education or a proper healthcare (if no relative man was available to escort them to the hospital, what happens to be a main problem in a country full of widows).
No religion sanctions that but if there were one doing so it would mean nothing and the fact would keep execrable anyway and so would be ours the duty to stop it. In the name of the human being, never in the name of the western civilization.
The rule of thumb is that you must let legal goverments decide how to manage their citizens. And the limit is, once again, that they do not kill...at least not too many people, not directly.
And this was the case. Oppression but not direct extermination. Therefore internal affairs you could say and sadly a lot of politicians too.
I say, like the way we see family business has changed, so relations between countries should change. Everybody is responsible of everything because we live in the same world. The pollution western countries produce does not remain above them in their skies but travels freely among frontiers showing us in the tough way how times have evolve to the globalization, wathever it means.
So, if we are capable of evolve and asume what reality has already brought us, will then see that globalization must reach internal affairs and make them everybody affairs.
Has the USA the right to invade a country? Absolutely no.
But let me rephrase the question: Has the international community the right to do it? Yes. And I say more. There are a lot of cases where it has the obligation, even if the so call problem concerns only to that country and its inhabitants. Because people are human beings before this or that nation's citizens. And so we must ensure its civil rights no matter what.
And now comes my point. I think that the absolute oppression Afgan women suffered was enough to support an intervention to reestablish the equilibrium between what can be seen as the particular cultural behavior of a special region or religion and human rights.
An act of that magnitude is even more justified when it is perfectly clear the oppressed are not able to set them free by their own means. You can not wait forever wondering if things are going to change. You should change them...for good.
One of the first objections to intervention is that of local customs or traditions, and turns into a big unassailable fortress if you are able to disguise it with one of the so call, big religions. Because then the root of the discussion moves toward the eternal fight among civilizations and the original problem seems to disolve in a sea of other reasons, that eventually end with the economical aim to subdue the other religion, culture or race.
A beloved husband could say about the way he treats her beloved wife that he beats her but it is allright, you know, is their custom...their? actually is his. Like was Afgan men practice not to let Afgan women to become emancipated, denying them even the right to a full education or a proper healthcare (if no relative man was available to escort them to the hospital, what happens to be a main problem in a country full of widows).
No religion sanctions that but if there were one doing so it would mean nothing and the fact would keep execrable anyway and so would be ours the duty to stop it. In the name of the human being, never in the name of the western civilization.
No comments:
Post a Comment