The Human Rights Thread

[MrPresident]

There are countries in the world that disregard their citizens human rights. There are countries in the world that do not find this behaviour acceptable. How should the former deal with the latter? Should pro-human rights countries (nominally The West) deal with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes? Should they try to overthrow them? If so, how should they try this? Armed intervention? Military assistance? Monetary assistance? If not, then what should they do, if anything? Should they publicly condemn them? Should they impose trade restrictions? UN sanctions? Or should they employ a policy of engagement? What are your views on the subject?

 

[Rout]

Military intervention is not possible it would seem, due to the instability caused and the obvious moral questions behind such endeavours (c.f Iraq).
Its up to the people of these nations to stand up and overthrow dictators if thats what they really want. Plus a lot of these totalitarian states are religion-oriented which means the populace accepts the oppresion by the principal ruler.

 

[addiv]

Nations that violate human rights on a large scale should be adressed by the UN about it, but invading those countries or offering military assistance to rebels goes too far and it is very doubtful that it will have results for the better.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by addiv
Nations that violate human rights on a large scale should be adressed by the UN about it, but invading those countries or offering military assistance to rebels goes too far and it is very doubtful that it will have results for the better.

Rather, it would be much better if the UN were to offer a very stern, tersely worded note of disapproval that the country's dissidents could quote from during any future show trial.

R.III

 

[Rout]

Originally posted by Richard III


Rather, it would be much better if the UN were to offer a very stern, tersely worded note of disapproval that the country's dissidents could quote from during any future show trial.

R.III

Heh, would you rather we invade these countries?
I think trade embargoes and diplomatic pressure is the only thing we can do

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by Richard III


Rather, it would be much better if the UN were to offer a very stern, tersely worded note of disapproval that the country's dissidents could quote from during any future show trial.

R.III

Better simply to supply dissidents with weaponary and at very reasonable rates too

 

[addiv]

Originally posted by Rout

I think trade embargoes and diplomatic pressure is the only thing we can do

Trade embargoes usually only hit the common people, not the rulers, so I don't think that's really a good way to put pressure on other countries.

 

[Xen]

conquest! that's the western way if dealing with 'em! j/k

 

[HannibalBarka]

I think It has to be always done through the UN. The are maybe not perfect, but it is the best we have today. Because the issue, IMHO, is not that easy and clear because of a lot of reasons:
1. Human rights are in some cases cultural relative, and not agreed even within western nations. I'll take two evident example: the Death Penalty and the Right to abortion.
2. The western claim is not always innocent, some times it hides a commercial/strategic goal.
3. Some human rights values can't be implemented in 24Hours. Democray is something that took years, if not centuries in some western countries to be implemented. So, trying to sell as "instant coffe" to same nations will just generate anarchy, whish is the worst political system (as CIV III players we all agree on that). As Socrate stated it: People will always prefer Despostism over Anarchy".
4. In a lot of those countries (the one not respecting Human rights), the main issue is not even human right as we think of in the western world (democracy, free speech...) but basic Human rights (food, health, eductaion). We in the west some times focus more on issues important to us but secondary to 3rd world countries.
5. A lot of the these people don't trust the western powers, because we have always acted for our national interests, seldom to defend Human rights, even if we have always found a better way to present our actions.
6. Every nation is touchy about other nation intervening in their internal affairs, and I am not talking about the regimes only, I mean the people too. Human Right intervention is seen by some as a new "presentable" way for western countries to intervene in other countries for their own agenda.

 

[Hawkster]

Truth is there is very little which can be done, military intervention only leads to more problems (as in Iraq) unless welcomed (eg Sierra Leone) , sanctions don't work - they only effect the ordinary citizens (or even worse the weak and vulnerable) and the UN - please!

Change can only come from within - as in eastern Europe throwing off the shakles of communism and leading to the downfall of the USSR.


The only strategy which can help and will not make things worse in the country concern is a mix of publicity , pressure for change is preventing the leaders of such countries from travelling abroad and making use of foreign amenities (swiss bank account anyone..). Unless of course the country concerned is rich or has significant mineral reserves in which case the standard policy is do nothing.

 

[FredLC]

How they should deal with it? Well, I've said before, I say again: They can't. At least directly.

The only way to create a fair system is to create an international organism - being that the UN or whatever - that is able to impartially judge the nations and decide for the most suitable course of action - up to invasion - using it's own forces, forces that answer to such international organism, not to any nation like it happens presently.

We need to create an international system of justice that is completely independent, like the national systems are independent from the national governments. Otherwise, all actions will always lack legitimacy, and without it, we can't accomplish anything.

I think we will eventually get there. It's an innevitable process, considering the environment of the modern world. A process that is a large scale repetition of the process that made feuds organize into nations.

It will take some time, but we will get there.

In the meantime, we have to swallow down what we don't like, and try to use the consequential disconfort as encouragement to speed up the building of a united world.

Otherwise, we will always end up with new Iraqs.

Regards .

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Rout
Heh, would you rather we invade these countries?
I think trade embargoes and diplomatic pressure is the only thing we can do

No, I'd rather send a strongly worded note! Anything else might actually upset somebody!

Look at Zimbabwe. Trade sanctions? Ha! They don't want to trade with us. We could instead drop in, say, 50,000 troops armed to the teeth, create a "liberated zone" airhead with big pockets of food and free printing, thereby giving the appearance of a little momentum for change! But that might not recognize the all-important soveriegnty of the dictatorial regime!

So I'd much prefer something like this...

Your Excellency, My Dear President Mugabe:

As you can see, we are continuing to go through the trouble to recognize you as the Excellenceness that You are, owing to the fact that You, kind sir, are part of that exclusive club of UN members.

Please allow us to kiss Your Excellent Ass, Excellency.

In the interests of constructive engagement, while doing so, we would like to interrupt Your jailing, murdering, expropriation and starvation of dissidents for one moment, if we may, to note that a very very disappointed resolution was passed by a number of nations that You currently denounce as Imperialist Foreigners. It reads:

RESOLUTION 1672 -
Resolved that Zimbabwe is somewhat upsetting,

and Buttressed by the fact that another press release will do the trick,

We the Security Council of the UN hereby add to world security by recommending that the UN study the country of Zimbabwe in detail through several fact-finding missions to nearby countries. Further, we might consider denying shipments of food, medicine, trade, small arms and any other means that might be used by dissidents to stay alive and build their cause. Such denials will be to anyone who might happen to be in Zimbabwe, on the grounds that denying such things to both sides is the "fair" thing to do.

[VETOED by the People's Republic of China, March 8, 2004]

Thank You, Your Majesticness, for Your attention to this matter.

Yours,
Boutros-Boutros Ghali
Secretary-Secretary General

Perfectly safe, keeps everyone's conscience clean, and that's what's important, right?

R.III

 

[jack merchant]

Secretary-Secretary General

Personally, I feel invasions are certainly justified - as a last resort, obviously. I would prefer a mechanism like Fred proposes as the UN currently isn't up to the job, particularly due to the veto powers of some countries that prefer to be able to treat their citizens as badly as they want to. As such, it is inevitable that some interventions are done in a legal vacuum.
Though HannibalBarka is right that the motives of the intervening countries aren't always benign (the French Operation Turqoise in Rwanda comes to mind), this only goes to show we need a better mechanism to deal with human rights violations, not that we restrict ourselves to condemning the violators with empty pronouncements.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

We need to put aside the tired old formula of invading, or meaningless trade sanctions. We have the best hackers in the world. Why not use them to take over the governments computer networks nationwide and try to destabilise the regime that way. That would be one new tool in the, uh, 'arsenal of freedom'

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
We need to put aside the tired old formula of invading, or meaningless trade sanctions. We have the best hackers in the world. Why not use them to take over the governments computer networks nationwide and try to destabilise the regime that way. That would be one new tool in the, uh, 'arsenal of freedom'

One question. After we have destabilised the regime and brought on a state of anarchy in which hundreds of thousands will be killed, raped or tortured, the national economy will collapse killing millions more through starvation and disease, and another dictatorial regime has risen from the bloody civil war, which killed millions and injuried many more, who will pick up the phone bill?

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
We need to put aside the tired old formula of invading, or meaningless trade sanctions. We have the best hackers in the world. Why not use them to take over the governments computer networks nationwide and try to destabilise the regime that way. That would be one new tool in the, uh, 'arsenal of freedom'

I agree with Mr. President (he is, after all, the President) but there is still some value in Dumb Pothead's points (although he is Dumb Pothead).

His critique of the tired old formula is valid, insofar as the methods used are blunt instruments. Why not, to use Zim as an example, move a few guys in, pop Mugabe's guards with some bullets, drugs or whatever, stuff Mugabe in a big potato bag, take him via helicopter to St. Helena for some "fresh air," and tell his successor that the same goes for him into he has a free and fair election monitored by unfettered armed foreign observers. Each party will be allowed scrutineers, of course.

We have the means, and yet...

R.III

 

[Jorge]

Diplomacy with economic help in case the country stops human right violations. Political support to democratic opposition groups.

In case there is already a war in the country millitary actions supporting the more democratic side could be a good option.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Jorge
In case there is already a war in the country millitary actions supporting the more democratic side could be a good option.

Or at least not interfering with the democratic side's efforts at self-defence.

What pissed me off about Bosnia - in a reflection of similar stupidity during the Spanish Civil War - was that the arms embargo was applied both to the aggressor and the victim. Just let the defenders buy some weapons and defend themselves, that would be a start.

R.III

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by MrPresident
One question. After we have destabilised the regime and brought on a state of anarchy in which hundreds of thousands will be killed, raped or tortured, the national economy will collapse killing millions more through starvation and disease, and another dictatorial regime has risen from the bloody civil war, which killed millions and injuried many more, who will pick up the phone bill?

Damn, and people call me a pessimist! If we destabilise the government by taking over its computer networks (this includes the networks of its telecommunication industry and its power grid), it leaves it wide open to insurgents waiting inside the country to make their move and topple the regime. You dont think that doing something like this in coordination with rebel groups inside the country would be effective? Why not?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead

Damn, and people call me a pessimist! If we destabilise the government by taking over its computer networks (this includes the networks of its telecommunication industry and its power grid), it leaves it wide open to insurgents waiting inside the country to make their move and topple the regime. You dont think that doing something like this in coordination with rebel groups inside the country would be effective? Why not?

You are forgetting two major things:

1. Third world countries make much less use of computers, so the damage would be limited to El Supremo Commander's game of Minesweeper. Indeed a national crisis, but not important enough to trigger a rebellion.

2. Third world countries can have first rate hackers too.