Why do people unite when unpreventable natural disasters strike, but willingly turn a blind eye to man-made atrocities, which could be prevented or stopped? Why is there an outpouring of sympathy for the victims of disasters such as the earthquakes in Bam, Iran, or the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, and yet muted silence for the victims of the myriad of brutal regimes which dot the planet? This post will list some of the excuses people and governments use to shrug off actions against the worst offenders in our midst. None of the items listed below can be taken alone as a reason for inaction; it is a combination of these problems that make for a complacent world.

A Refusal to Assign Blame. It is very easy for the world to unite after a natural disaster, as there is no one to assign blame for natural catastrophes. Acting against man made crimes requires choosing a side and calling the actions of murderers to account for their crimes.

Moral Equivalence. How dare we judge other cultures? If North Korea wants to run concentration camps, who are we to judge them? If Saddam wants to shoot and gas hundreds of thousands of his own people and invade foreign countries, why should we say this is wrong? If the ‘savages’ in Africa want to butcher their fellow countrymen, who are we to tell them no?

Inward Looking. Western countries have become insular and complacent, particularly in Europe; however there is a significant strain of isolationism in America politics. The problems inside a country become paramount, and the plights of those less fortunate who live in foreign countries are ignored.

Lack of Will. As the world is filled with oppressive regimes, a peculiar bit of logic sets in among some in Western countries: we should not act against murderous regimes because we cannot act against all of them. This logic was on display before and after the invasion of Iraq: sure, Saddam is a bad guy, but what about North Korea? Or the Mullahs of Iran? Or Syria’s Assad? Or Zimbabwe’s Mugabe? The inability to remove all oppressive regimes becomes an excuse for inaction.

Lack of Means. Countries do not possess the ability to stop these atrocities, and therefore ignore the plight of others. If they recognize a problem exists and yet do nothing about it, this would be an admission of incompetence. This mindset is on display in Darfur, where European nations refuse to label the atrocities as genocide, as it would require action, and their ability to project power is diminished.

Negotiation Over Action. As countries are unable to do anything about these rogues due to a lack of will and an inability to act, they rely on negotiating with murderous regimes in the hope they could be turned around. Relying on negotiation exclusively only grants the oppressors legitimacy and encourages them to continue on their path of destruction, as there are no consequences for their actions. The emergence of the United Nations as the sole authority on international matters in the eyes of many Western cultures exacerbates the problem, as undemocratic governments have a vested interest in preventing actions against their fellow criminal governments.

Sympathy for the Devil/Hatred of Capitalism. Many on the Left prefer the Communist and Statist regimes such as Cuba’s Fidel Castro, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. These supposedly utopia societies provide universal health care, education and a fair distribution of property. So what if a couple of eggs (or a couple of million eggs) have to be broken in the process? Just as long as these countries don’t practice the evils of Capitalism...

Money. Some governments are only interested in financial gain, and are more than willing to look past the crimes of governments. The perfect example is the European Union’s interactions with Iran. Europe ignores Iran’s developing nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, interference in Iraq and suppression of human rights to secure oil and other contracts from the Iranian Mullahs (Lack of Will, Lack of Means and Negotiation over Action also play a role in this).

Post-Colonial Guilt. The dissolution of the empires of Europe that followed after World War II has lead to much hand wringing in European nations. Many of the former colonies in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and the Middle East were left to their own devices to form whatever means of government they preferred, or "local strongment" were placed in power to preserve relationships. The years of “colonial oppression” by European powers has led to a guilty conscience, a refusal to interfere and an acceptance of brutal regimes.

The Antiwarriors. The peaceniks, those who believe that “war is never the answer” and abhor any use of military force, believe that all problems could be worked out via dialog. Nations willing to interfere in crises using military force are branded as immoral, imperial, aggressive, war-mongers and fascists, while the crimes of the dictators are swept under the carpet.

Man-made catastrophes such as genocide and war could be avoided if the free world was more willing to act against those committing crimes against humanity. Instead, much of the free world finds an excuse to do nothing. Mankind does not possess the capacity to prevent earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, meteor strikes or other natural events; we can only mitigate the effects of such natural phenomena (a better warning system may has reduced casualties in the tsunami; better construction could have reduced the deaths in the earthquake in Bam). But we certainly have the ability to remove governments that offer nothing but death and destruction to citizens and neighbors.

If a grouping of democracies was willing to sanction criminal governments and act against the most violent offenders, the lesser tyrants would see that their days are numbered and reconsider their actions. This requires a grouping of nations with a strong will, strong leadership, potent militaries and a prioritization of goals. Unfortunately the free world lacks this leadership, and it does not go unnoticed. The schisms among the free governments are exploited and the rogue nations take heart in this, knowing there is little chance they will be held to account for their crimes.

The irony of all of this is that if nations were more willing to use force to act against oppressive regimes, they would possess the capacity to provide humanitarian assistance in times where natural disasters strike. The American military is the only power on the planet with the ability to project force across the globe, and because of this, has the capacity to assist the nations ravaged by the Indian Ocean tsunami. Other Western “powers” (with the exception of Australia and Britain) are limited to meager logistical contributions due to their neglect of their militaries. They can provide financial contributions, but the money means very little in the opening stages of a humanitarian crisis, when the ability to provide manpower, equipment, and physically distribute food, water, medical supplies, transportation and other vital material is most important.