Turn on thread page Beta

Should the world community try to topple dictators watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    With the development in Iraq, one may ask if the world community should try to topple the most cruel dictators of the world.

    Taken into consideration the situation in Burma, North Korea, Iran and several other countries should the western world not interfere more in order to try to dismantle the worst dictatorships?

    I am not talking about the sort of politically motivated invasion as what we just saw in Iraq, but a more consequent policy not to allow cruel dictators to abuse the population of a country. Some cases are obviously borderline, and then peace should be chosen instead. However is it not selfish to sit and ignore crimes against humanity when the democratic world is more than capable to dismantle dictatorships in several countries around the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    With the development in Iraq, one may ask if the world community should try to topple the most cruel dictators of the world.

    Taklen into conideration the situation in Burma, North Korea, Iran and several other countries should the western world not interfere more in order to try to dismantle the worst dictatorships?

    I am not talking about the sort of politically motivated invasion as what we just saw in Iraq, but a more consequent policy not to allow cruel dictators to abuse the population of a country. Some cases are obviously borderline, and then peace should be chosen instead. However is it not selfish to sit and ignore crimes against humanity when the democratic world is more than capable to dismantle dictatorships in several countries around the world.
    Countries should be free to do what they like within their own borders. What they get up to is no concern of 'the coalition', or whatever. However, if the actions of a government threaten the stability of a different country, then military action against them is justified.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Countries should be free to do what they like within their own borders. What they get up to is no concern of 'the coalition', or whatever. However, if the actions of a government threaten the stability of a different country, then military action against them is justified.
    So if a dictatorship in a country kills 10 000 of its civilian population annually we should not interfere?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    With the development in Iraq, one may ask if the world community should try to topple the most cruel dictators of the world.

    Taklen into conideration the situation in Burma, North Korea, Iran and several other countries should the western world not interfere more in order to try to dismantle the worst dictatorships?

    I am not talking about the sort of politically motivated invasion as what we just saw in Iraq, but a more consequent policy not to allow cruel dictators to abuse the population of a country. Some cases are obviously borderline, and then peace should be chosen instead. However is it not selfish to sit and ignore crimes against humanity when the democratic world is more than capable to dismantle dictatorships in several countries around the world.
    Can you outline your proposed mechanism for removal of these dictators in these countries and then i'll happily give you my opinion
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Can you outline your proposed mechanism for removal of these dictators in these countries and then i'll happily give you my opinion
    Whatever it takes. I am not saying you should launch a military assult if it would cause a nuclear war or anything, but I think western countries have a responsibility over the people who have been so unfortunate as to live at the mercy of a cruel dictatorship. Where it can be done I think one should interfere militarily as long as it can be done without causing a humanitarian disaster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So if a dictatorship in a country kills 10 000 of its civilian population annually we should not interfere?
    No. It may sound heartless, but governments should be independent, and not interfere in the running of a seperate state unless it affects the stability of their own. What right does the USA or Britain have to interfere with another country's business? It is not their concern, and, unless, as I said, their existence is a threat to liberty, then they should focus on internal affairs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    No. It may sound heartless, but governments should be independent, and not interfere in the running of a seperate state unless it affects the stability of their own. What right does the USA or Britain have to interfere with another country's business? It is not their concern, and, unless, as I said, their existence is a threat to liberty, then they should focus on internal affairs.
    Given that about half my relatives were gassed to death in Aushwitz before the prisioners were liberated by the Russians I hope you understand why I disagree. Fair enough, Hitler did atack other countries, but in principle he could have initiated the holocoust within germany's own borders. To let something like this happening without atemting to stop it is unnacceptable in my opinion. I would want to turn the question the other way and ask what right do we have NOT to help if we are capable to? Furthermore, even if we chose not to help how can you possibly justify doing bussiness with such a government?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Whatever it takes. I am not saying you should launch a military assult if it would cause a nuclear war or anything, but I think western countries have a responsibility over the people who have been so unfortunate as to live at the mercy of a cruel dictatorship. Where it can be done I think one should interfere militarily as long as it can be done without causing a humanitarian disaster.
    Well...I would argue that any miltary intervention is going to cause a disator in countries. Breakdown of essentials like electricity/water etc, people dying - although the conclusion might be welcomed can we ever be justified in doing so? Miltary action is inevitable going to cause humantarian issues in all countries.

    So I would disagree on that point, miltary action can only come when a country is a threat not only to its people as a whole but to world secruity. Dimplomatic measures must be only step to solving Human Rights concerns etc in countries like Iran.

    You are suggesting after military action we would impose democracy? If so, surely this remains a contridiction? We are imposing a western value that is based on freedom/legitmacy on a region that may not actually want it.
    Trying to set up a democracy is also very difficult and the 'quick fix' attempted in Iraq is hardly a democracy. The west has proved, again, it is not willing to see things completely through to fruition.

    Also, looking at the stablity of these regions, particularly in Iran - we risk the Middle East becoming very hostile toward these 'western' invasion of their land and imposing western values on what is an eastern culture - the culture is very different it is very hard for the west to put a legitmate government and governmental system in place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Given that about half my relatives were gassed to death in Aushwitz before the prisioners were liberated by the Russians I hope you understand why I disagree. Fair enough, Hitler did atack other countries, but in principle he could have initiated the holocoust within germany's own borders. To let something like this happening without atemting to stop it is unnacceptable in my opinion. I would want to turn the question the other way and ask what right do we have NOT to help if we are capable to? Furthermore, even if we chose not to help how can you possibly justify doing bussiness with such a government?
    So what? My grandfather was in Bergen-Belsen, doesn't mean that I abandon logic for sympathy.

    I don't say that my opinion is morally right, because it isn't. A lot of governments are irresponsible in the extreme, and exact horrible punsihments upon undeserving peope within their own borders. But who are we to say who deserves retribution and who doesn't? Isolationism is an effective policy, and countries should focus on solving their own problems. The last thing this country needs is 'Super-Tony' flying off to save the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    You are suggesting after military action we would impose democracy? If so, surely this remains a contridiction? We are imposing a western value that is based on freedom/legitmacy on a region that may not actually want it.
    Trying to set up a democracy is also very difficult and the 'quick fix' attempted in Iraq is hardly a democracy. The west has proved, again, it is not willing to see things completely through to fruition.
    Yes... America has established what it sees as an effective government. Perhaps, under some circumstances, democracy must be sacrificed for effectiveness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is justified on occasion, yes. Although I would only ever support it if it was agreed upon by a clear majority of the world's population. No mechanism exists for that consent to be given, as of now, the UN security council (nor the general assembly for that matter) obviously doesn't fulfil that role.

    But in theory, yes, I would support it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Well...I would argue that any miltary intervention is going to cause a disator in countries. Breakdown of essentials like electricity/water etc, people dying - although the conclusion might be welcomed can we ever be justified in doing so? Miltary action is inevitable going to cause humantarian issues in all countries.

    So I would disagree on that point, miltary action can only come when a country is a threat not only to its people as a whole but to world secruity. Dimplomatic measures must be only step to solving Human Rights concerns etc in countries like Iran.

    You are suggesting after military action we would impose democracy? If so, surely this remains a contridiction? We are imposing a western value that is based on freedom/legitmacy on a region that may not actually want it.
    Trying to set up a democracy is also very difficult and the 'quick fix' attempted in Iraq is hardly a democracy. The west has proved, again, it is not willing to see things completely through to fruition.

    Also, looking at the stablity of these regions, particularly in Iran - we risk the Middle East becoming very hostile toward these 'western' invasion of their land and imposing western values on what is an eastern culture - the culture is very different it is very hard for the west to put a legitmate government and governmental system in place.
    The problem is that in many occasions the people of the country want democracy but they do not get it because they are surpressed by the regime. Take Burma as an example, the military Junta holds down any democratic process although the people clearly wants democratic rights. Also, I find it hard to justify not invading a country in which the government are guilty of massive crimes against humanity, such as genecide. What about Cambodja? Was vietnam wrong in putting pol pots rule to an end? It is to naive to say that we have no business there unless we are threatened ourselves. If the population clearly are surpressed and want democracy (as is the case in Burma) how can we possibly deny them our assistance merely because the regime do not threaten us? LAso, the culture argument is nonsense. It is not because of culture that Saddam husein murdered 10 000 Iraqis annually. It is not because of culture that the people in Burma are surpressed. You are saying that we have no right to interfere with crimes which occur outside ou borders, I say you are responsible for all your choices, also when deciding not to end a foreign genecide.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    I think it is justified on occasion, yes. Although I would only ever support it if it was agreed upon by a clear majority of the world's population. No mechanism exists for that consent to be given, as of now, the UN security council (nor the general assembly for that matter) obviously doesn't fulfil that role.

    But in theory, yes, I would support it.
    Well, as you mention, a problem is that a majority of the countries in teh UN are dictatorships, thus a democratic process in the UN can never yield a vote in favour of going to war in order to achieve democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well, as you mention, a problem is that a majority of the countries in teh UN are dictatorships, thus a democratic process in the UN can never yield a vote in favour of going to war in order to achieve democracy.
    Yeah, exactly.

    I think the time when when the international community can go round the world picking off the *******s, as it were, is a very long way in the future, if it ever comes about. It is certainly unthinkable within the current realities of international relations.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The problem is that in many occasions the people of the country want democracy but they do not get it because they are surpressed by the regime. Take Burma as an example, the military Junta holds down any democratic process although the people clearly wants democratic rights. Also, I find it hard to justify not invading a country in which the government are guilty of massive crimes against humanity, such as genecide. What about Cambodja? Was vietnam wrong in putting pol pots rule to an end? It is to naive to say that we have no business there unless we are threatened ourselves. If the population clearly are surpressed and want democracy (as is the case in Burma) how can we possibly deny them our assistance merely because the regime do not threaten us? LAso, the culture argument is nonsense. It is not because of culture that Saddam husein murdered 10 000 Iraqis annually. It is not because of culture that the people in Burma are surpressed. You are saying that we have no right to interfere with crimes which occur outside ou borders, I say you are responsible for all your choices, also when deciding not to end a foreign genecide.
    I think you have missed my point, or I did not explain it clearly. I'll use Iran as my example, since I have a vague clue.

    I agree, in places like Iran where people are subject to punishments such as flogging, and human rights are abused and where the people support regime change...in theory it would be a good thing to do and bring a government that the people want that will ensure the liberty of its citizens.

    What i'm saying is that your mechanism which is 'Whatever it takes' is not a viable option because of the problems it will cause. It is argued by all international relations people that the regime change through force from outside is a bad idea (credit to Kildare).

    The reasons for this are as follows;

    - The remove a regime as seen in Iraq through force has a humantarian crisis associated with it, and it will involve deaths for both sides and innocent civilians being killed.

    - Imposing western democracy is not a viable option (see Iraq), democracy has evolved over centuries you cannot just 'give' it to a country

    - Resentment within the Middle east particular as it will be felt that the west is infringing of their part of the world. This could lead to further tension and furthering terrorist attacks

    - Majority approval (as llama boy said) could never be achieved, as not all the secruity counil will adovcate violence to solve what the west percieves as a problem

    Although, I agree something must be done - my reasons about suggest that military action will cause alot more problems that it solves and even after it is done there are masses of problems with these 'quick fix' democracies.
    I think using dimplomatic/economic means to bring governments in line with Human Rights (etc.) is a much safer/humane way to start the process of regime change within in these countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    I think you have missed my point, or I did not explain it clearly. I'll use Iran as my example, since I have a vague clue.

    I agree, in places like Iran where people are subject to punishments such as flogging, and human rights are abused and where the people support regime change...in theory it would be a good thing to do and bring a government that the people want that will ensure the liberty of its citizens.

    What i'm saying is that your mechanism which is 'Whatever it takes' is not a viable option because of the problems it will cause. It is argued by all international relations people that the regime change through force from outside is a bad idea (credit to Kildare).

    The reasons for this are as follows;

    - The remove a regime as seen in Iraq through force has a humantarian crisis associated with it, and it will involve deaths for both sides and innocent civilians being killed.

    - Imposing western democracy is not a viable option (see Iraq), democracy has evolved over centuries you cannot just 'give' it to a country

    - Resentment within the Middle east particular as it will be felt that the west is infringing of their part of the world. This could lead to further tension and furthering terrorist attacks

    - Majority approval (as llama boy said) could never be achieved, as not all the secruity counil will adovcate violence to solve what the west percieves as a problem

    Although, I agree something must be done - my reasons about suggest that military action will cause alot more problems that it solves and even after it is done there are masses of problems with these 'quick fix' democracies.
    I think using dimplomatic/economic means to bring governments in line with Human Rights (etc.) is a much safer/humane way to start the process of regime change within in these countries.
    Ok, I undertsand Iran may be a problem, but what about countries like Burma? Also, Hitlers Nazi Germany did not atack the US, yet they desided to invade normandy(wrong decision?)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Ok, I undertsand Iran may be a problem, but what about countries like Burma? Also, Hitlers Nazi Germany did not atack the US, yet they desided to invade normandy(wrong decision?)
    I'll have a read up on Burma and post an answer 2moro
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    So what? My grandfather was in Bergen-Belsen, doesn't mean that I abandon logic for sympathy.

    I don't say that my opinion is morally right, because it isn't. A lot of governments are irresponsible in the extreme, and exact horrible punsihments upon undeserving peope within their own borders. But who are we to say who deserves retribution and who doesn't? Isolationism is an effective policy, and countries should focus on solving their own problems. The last thing this country needs is 'Super-Tony' flying off to save the world.
    Surely america as the worlds only superpower at this time has some responsiblity towards protecting other people. not only from an ecomonic viewpoint (american markets depend on international investment) but a moral one, great power great responsibility etc

    furthermore all countries depend on one another, trade, military alliances tourism etc. its in our own interest to interfere.

    there should be a moral element too. the fact that we are all human and don't want to see inhumane treatment of others. we can't sit back and watch people being massacared or unfairly treated.

    however it isnt practical or right to send troops into every humanitarian blackspot or undemocratic country. Iraq shows that western ideologys aren't always compatable with eastern thinking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Yes... America has established what it sees as an effective government. Perhaps, under some circumstances, democracy must be sacrificed for effectiveness.
    America will never give up its democracy. Half of all americans would rather assasinate the government then give up democracy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    So what? My grandfather was in Bergen-Belsen, doesn't mean that I abandon logic for sympathy.

    I don't say that my opinion is morally right, because it isn't. A lot of governments are irresponsible in the extreme, and exact horrible punsihments upon undeserving peope within their own borders. But who are we to say who deserves retribution and who doesn't? Isolationism is an effective policy, and countries should focus on solving their own problems. The last thing this country needs is 'Super-Tony' flying off to save the world.
    In the long run what is going on in other countries WILL be our problem. Many dictatorships use our western culture as a scapegoat for their own problems. During the Sovjet era, everything that was wrong was blaimed on the western countries and capitalism. If we allow dictators such as Saddam Husein or the Talibans to blaim all the domestic problems on us, then eventually we will get fanatic terrorists atacking us.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.