Last week, a fellow contributor to USNI noticed that the US Navy has a new slogan: “America’s Navy – A Global Force for Good” . The slogan is likely an attempt to highlight the Navy’s growing role as a instrument of US soft power around the world. From disaster relief in the Pacific to health clinics in South America, the Navy is quickly positioning itself as America’s de facto soft power force.
I would not at all be surprised if, in five years, you would be hard pressed to find a sailor that hadn’t participated in a humanitarian mission.
Christopher R. Albon is a political science Ph.D. specializing in armed conflict, public health, human security, and health diplomacy.
Want more? Subscribe to Conflict Health through RSS or email.
{ 3 comments }
Depends on the definition of “humanitarian”. Are these missions truly no-strings-attached deeds of humanitarian nature? Or are they “humanitarian” fronts for political strategies? Or perhaps a mixture of both. Using the guise of humanitarian efforts to seek political objectives endangers true humanitarian organizations and aid workers. So at the end of the day, is the Navy’s push to connect themselves with the idea of humanitarianism in the best interest of all (not just the Navy)?
Are these missions truly no-strings-attached deeds of humanitarian nature?
>>Absolutely not, our government exists to serve us.
Or are they “humanitarian” fronts for political strategies?
>>Absolutely, the Navy and all other executive branches of government are tools the president uses to serve the interests of America.
Using the guise of humanitarian efforts to seek political objectives endangers true humanitarian organizations and aid workers.
>>True only if we are there to tamper with the conflict. Everyone is there for a reason, but only some are open about what hose reasons are.
So at the end of the day, is the Navy’s push to connect themselves with the idea of humanitarianism in the best interest of all (not just the Navy)?
>>Yes. It’s all about logistics and no one is bigger or better than the US military.
TEJ hit the nail on the head. But I will reply too.
**Are these missions truly no-strings-attached deeds of humanitarian nature?**
They aren’t quid pro quo, but they are attempts to win-friends-and-influence-people. Helping people does not have to be selfless. Few people can claim “no-strings-attached* humanitarianism. For example, academic researchers conduct development projects both help people AND provide material for grants/research articles (and thus tenure).
**Or are they “humanitarian” fronts for political strategies?**
See above
**Using the guise of humanitarian efforts to seek political objectives endangers true humanitarian organizations and aid workers.**
Not at all. People (and combatants) are smart enough to distinguish between governments (and their goals) and NGOs (and their goals).
Comments on this entry are closed.