When a democratic country is faced with really objectionable regimes it faces a problem: Isolating them makes your objections clear, but gives you no flexibility. If their abuse of their citizenry (or those of other countries) worsens, you have nowhere to go, short of war. If it improves a bit, it is hard to reward progress without normalizing relations. In addition, by appearing to bully, you risk strengthening the regime's hold on power (as mentioned in some recent threads, this seems to have been a problem with US Cuba policy). By engaging a regime in dialogue and trade, you can try persuasion and hope that the taste of an open society that trade provides helps reform. The problem is that you run the risk of being held hostage by the regime you seek to undermine, since abandoning the policy in the face of some new outrage makes you look like a failure. The despotic regime, knowing that a democratic government cannot easily walk away once it has engaged a country like China or Indonesia, is liable to milk the relationship for all its worth. In the absence of a disciplined, legitimate opposition (apartheid S. Africa, Burma today - 'though they're not doing too well) isolation doesn't seem to work (Cuba, N. Korea, Iraq). Yet engagement on commercial and diplomatic fronts seems to create vested interests within the democratic country that become de facto supporters of the despotic regime. How should a sincere government deal with these issues? If we can keep this thread mainly focused on this question rather than how awful various regimes are or how insincere democratic countries' governments may or may not be, it might be more interesting than otherwise. Any thoughts? Peace.
Damn good question there. Only a few days ago someone from the Iranian government said in response to that "Axis Of Evil" stuff: "The USA roams around the world blowing up everything, invading and killing to force their policies. Yet we are the terrorists?" And the Korean news I watched last week (in Australia we have a channel called SBS which plays news from heaps of other countries ALL morning) said: "The USA seems to believe that it reserves the sole right to strike out against other nations." These are understandable points of view I think. Not saying I agree or disagree, but it is understandable. I know that I wish Australia had the power to actively and strongly influence other nations more than it does. I was wondering about something vaguely rlated a few weeks ago, when Musharref and his opposites in India were having another pissing contest. Should nations have the right to invade, conquer, and rebuild other nations which threaten them, or which threaten the whole world? Obviously I am talking about the India/Pakistan situation. Two irresponsible nuclear powers. I think if a nuclear war ever happens, it will start there. I think we must have to right to invade, conquer, and rebuild such places which might threaten the entire world. Otherwise all we could do is sit back and discuss the philosophy of being nice to other nations while they nuke us. And waiting until teh nukes are launched will not save anyone. Such steps can only be taken prior to a nuclear event. Obviously the acceptable conditions for such an invasion and reconstruction would have to be decided by a majority of nations on Earth or something. But now back to what you specifically mentioned. That is indeed a problem. Both military isolation and dealing with them present the problems you brought up. That's part of why external intelligence agencies exist. Supporting government opposition in foreign nations can solve problems, or cause instability, whatever one desires. Trade deals can hold people hostage both ways, force issues, et cetera. But what if there is no opposition to support? No way to force matters through instability? Short of military invasion, I think, unfortunately, that the most common way for such nations to be changed is by internal rebellion/revolution. Push a people far enough, and they will push back. In the end, they may even be better for the long-term development of that nation.
Deep questions. I think it comes down to one simple question and one simple answer: Power, power, who has the power? Might makes right.
A sincere government would have to intervene in matters where the problems in intervening itself are outwayed by the problem inherent in the situation. Problem is, it's very hard to really get an absolute answer in this regard. Too bad the US wasn't spending more intervention time on the logistics of food production than stopping threats to political or corporate interests. There would be much less of a problem today if the US had simply known when to go in and when to stay out .
