I’ve abandoned this blog for a few weeks now. Well, it’s been the holidays and I had a great visitor over for almost a month. Anyway, I’m trying to get back in form with more constant writing. Meanwhile, please hop over to Academia.edu for a couple of essays I wrote for finals. One is on the English School of IR theory’s take on humanitarian intervention and the other is an exploration of the terror-crime nexus in Mexico. Here are the excerpts.
At face value, it is hard to argue with the principles of humanitarian intervention. It makes sense, at a very basic level, to try to save other human beings from hardship and suffering. And if to save them we need to use force, so be it. Human lives should certainly take precedence over the rights of states; violating a state’s sovereignty in order to protect its citizens is apparently a noble goal. However, if we stop to question our conceptions of what human rights are, or what we mean when we speak of international society, things begin to look differently.
In October 2011, the United States announced that it had uncovered a plot in which a couple of suspected Iranian terrorists had tried to hire a person belonging to a Mexican drug cartel known as Los Zetas, to carry out the assasination of the Saudi ambassador to the US, in US territory. During the course of the investigation, however, it became apparent that the man they had contacted was in fact an under-cover DEA agent who did not belong to the Zeta cartel – or to any other cartel –, and no conclusive proof that the suspected terrorists were officially sent by Iran was to be found (or at least, made available to the public) (Savage & Shane 2011).
Please let me know any comments you may have.