The Human Rights Thread

[Jorge]

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?

For every democratic insurgent there are 10 that are non democratic and work for their own benefit. Why should the democratic the one taking the control?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Richard III

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

Even if I agree with you on the dictatorship nature of the Zim regime, I don't think it is that clear that Western nation have the right to military intervene in the case. Would you have agreed if some one would have done the same thing to the American President in the 50ies when the Human Rights were not respected for black people ?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
Would you have agreed if some one would have done the same thing to the American President in the 50ies when the Human Rights were not respected for black people ?

Would you have agreed if some one would have done the same thing to the Egyptian Pharaoh in the 2000ies BC when the Human Rights were not respected for all people ?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
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.

True, the people might not have access to computers and the like, but the government sure does. The higher up you go in the government, the more dependence on computers and telecom you'll find. If the phone system is down, the power grid shut down and its 2AM, and we've given the all clear signal to the rebels, whats stopping them from taking over?

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

They sure do, but fortunately, many of our first rate hackers are also from the 3rd World originally

Originally posted by Jorge


For every democratic insurgent there are 10 that are non democratic and work for their own benefit. Why should the democratic the one taking the control?

So what should we do then? Invade the country ourselves and run it for them? That approach doesnt seem to be working all that well in Iraq right now does it?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin


Would you have agreed if some one would have done the same thing to the Egyptian Pharaoh in the 2000ies BC when the Human Rights were not respected for all people ?

The Hittites have done the job.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Pothead
You watched Lawnmowerman one time too many. j/k

There's way too much hype on this "War of the electrones" (for now and perhaps the next 2, 3 decades).

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
Even if I agree with you on the dictatorship nature of the Zim regime, I don't think it is that clear that Western nation have the right to military intervene in the case. Would you have agreed if some one would have done the same thing to the American President in the 50ies when the Human Rights were not respected for black people ?

Again, I take issue with this whole notion of a legal "right." Mugabe has no "legal right" to stack the election and make himself Zimbabwe's representative to the world, but who else could stop him to police the police other than Zimbabwean's brothers and sisters in the rest of humanity?

If western powers won't do the trick, make it southern powers, or eastern, or antarctic. I don't care.

As for your question, well, one distinction there is the clear and present danger issue, insofar as Zimbabwe is starving itself for its politics, where the US clearly had vehicles for internal change that were being used to solve the problem (as history was demonstrating then and now). In Zimbabwe's case, those vehicles for change have all been corrupted.

But I also think what human society needs desperately is a "Year Zero," where everybody resets the clock and agrees through some amendment to the UN Charter or some such thing that all crimes of history previous to date x will be forgotten, so that we don't stop looking forward and acting for the future on the basis of endless historical comparisons like the one you made. Because if we rely on the "would you have..." logic, the world would never do anything for fear of an inconsistency.

R.III

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by Richard III
But I also think what human society needs desperately is a "Year Zero," where everybody resets the clock and agrees through some amendment to the UN Charter or some such thing that all crimes of history previous to date x will be forgotten, so that we don't stop looking forward and acting for the future on the basis of endless historical comparisons like the one you made. Because if we rely on the "would you have..." logic, the world would never do anything for fear of an inconsistency.
R.III

Nice to see you are grounding your arguements firmly in the real world.

A better dream is one where everyone makes a New Year Resolution to be nice and try to right any wrongs

 

[Vrylakas]

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

There was a powerful internal impetus (and animus) in Eastern Europe to get rid of the dictatorships, but the communist governments never would have collapsed without an important outside factor, namely the implosion of the USSR. Some situations just require outside intervention.

The question is what the West - presumably the folks who will be doing the intervening - is willing to do in any given situation. Should the West try to isolate the Arab governments until they institute democratic reforms, should we slap them with economic embargoes, should we invade them? I'm all for getting rid of dictatorships because I think they are a source of much of the world's current ills but the question is, what are we willing to do to force other countries and societies to accept human rights norms? What about larger countries like China, a chronic human rights violator, who will not be as easily intimidated militarily? Chavez? Mugabe? Lukashenka? What are we willing to do, what commitment are we willing to make? I strongly support what the West did in Bosnia and Kosovo, but it took far too long for the West to decide what it must do, and so many people died in the interim. If we're going to formulate a common human rights-oriented policy, well great but what are we willing to do to see it executed? Are we going to have touching candlelight vigils in our capitals or are we going to unleash the B-52s?

 

[Speedo]

Truthfully theres not much to be done that'll do any real good. The only way to really enforce human rights would be an impartial body that had power to back up what it said (not the UN, won't be the UN) and was willing to throw out the force required when it had to. We all know that isn't going to happen, at least anytime soon. So that leaves the UN to condemn the violations and impose economic sanctions and etc, all of which will actually accomplish jack squat.

 

[cgannon64]

Its a tough question. Every position has a downside.

Embargoes and sanctions can hurt the people more than help. See Saddam's regime on this one.

Invading the country can hurt more than it can help, or lead to long quagmires - Kosovo, for example, or what Iraq could become.

Scolding the country is ridiculous and does nothing.

Another possible solution is to give the people direct aid or offer the leader some kind of reward for helping out his people. While this is the only solution that can have definite visible effects, it is tough to use because it requires a cooperative leader and a proactive world body.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

We complain so much about terrorists, human rights offenders, etc...

Why don't we stop funding them?

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm

 

[Tassadar]

As long as those nation doesnt invade Québec, then i say, let them resolve their own problem.

No system have been proven better than another so far, arent we killing the planet slowly but surely with our industrialise world ?

Hubert Reeve , a well know astrophysician, said that if we dont do very strong changes, then the chance are very high that we will got extinct in a few decades, yes decades. Once the northern pole will be completly molten ( in about 30-50 years) then a cascade effect occur. The ice is like a mirror to sunlight, so when the ice is gone, even more heat come to earth. The northern pole have already lost more than 30 % of its surface. Eventualy it will lead to extrem climatique condition and massive life extinction, human include.

So, who are we to talk about human right, when are doing a long term mass extinction?

 

[bigfatron]

Whatever we (the West) choose to do, we will not be viewed as acting fairly until we apply the same rules evenly to countries that we get on with or approve of and countires that we don't.

Depending on our geopolitical interests we either condemn or stay silent, impose punishment or heap rewards. You can hardly blame third world observers if they think that our actions have a selfish rather than moral basis.

The relative value of human rights is also an issue - if you tell a Somali that the right to free speech is more important than the right to clean water, he'll laugh 'til he's sick. We place relative values on rights which reflect our comfortable existence, not the reality on the ground. We also prefer to endorse 'rights' that won't cost us any money....

We should try being honest and consistent about our course of action - that is far more important than what combination of sticks and carrots we choose to exercise.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by bigfatron
We place relative values on rights which reflect our comfortable existence, not the reality on the ground.

I disagree. We (as in the West) do not place relative values on right which reflect our comfortable existence. We place weight on long-term values while those in the third world, understandly, place weight on short-term values. Who cares if you can speak out against the government if you don't have access to clean water? Well, who cares if you have access to clean water if your father/son/brother has been taken away by the government and your mother/daughter/sister has been raped and left for dead?

Originally posted bigfatron
We should try being honest and consistent about our course of action - that is far more important than what combination of sticks and carrots we choose to exercise.

I suggest instead of being consistent, we do the right thing. Who cares if you do exactly what you always do if you always do the wrong thing? Better to do right once than wrong a thousand times.