A Question of Sovereignty

[Lucysnow]

What right do nations have to interfere in the internal social, cultural, political and judicial policies of another sovereign state?

The present political climate is one of interference lead by a sense of moral entitlement mostly by Western nations through the U.N

The U.N’s Declaration on Human Rights asserts in its pre-amble the advancement of said principles:

“...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Signed by 48 member states in 1948 the declaration is not legally binding and it is not a treaty, rather it is the promotion of standards assumed to be universally accepted. With the best intentions these standards have been outlined but still these very principles have been manipulated by various countries to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries for their own political ends under the guise of human rights. Military aggression, moral and unethical economic blockades, causing isolation, hunger and malnutrition of innocent people, have all been carried out in the name of human rights. Nations band together to block resolutions in the name of political interests and solidarity so there is no real consensus only power- broking.

Charters and resolutions by the U.N often go ignored and its difficult to force change on any particular nation short of military intervention and embargoes which often fail. I would go as far to say that the declaration has failed to reach its goals because it is unrealistic as long as there are autonomous nations representing differing attitudes at different times.

We can agree not to trade with another country, we can agree not to dialogue with another country but what right do we have to force seemingly liberal western standards on all nations worldwide regardless of culture, history, social readiness, religious and cultural restraints and taboos? The U.N harps on human rights regardless of whether any particular nation honors the U.N declaration or not so why not allow for the self-determination and grass-roots struggle to run its course as an alternative to present methods? Nations change internal policy mostly based on internal pressure.

Justice is not doled out equally among nations*, the U.N security council is only made up of five member states with other countries to rotate every two years. The international community is unable to stop any country from human rights abuses save condemnation which is often ignored. If we believe in the autonomous state then there is no right at attempts to force change. If we no longer believe in sovereignty then what is the alternative?

Since the charter states this:

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

It would seem that this charter is an attempt to override sovereignty.

*For example the U.S by the declaration’s guidelines has been recently guilty during the Bush years of article 5 also 9/10/11/12 due to the patriot act and the U.N did nothing.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countries that signed the declaration in '48:

Afghanitsan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Burma, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxumbourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Siam, Sweden, Syria, Turkey,United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

The following eight member states abstained: Byolurussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, South Africa, the USSR, and Yugoslavia.

[cosmictraveler]

What right do nations have to interfere in the internal social, cultural, political and judicial policies of another sovereign state?

Because of many things. Many times other nations want outside help and ask for it other times outsiders want to take stuff that another nation has for its own use.

[Lucysnow]

Is Iran asking for help? Burma? N. Korea? China?

You need to read the declaration better yet read the thread:rolleyes:

[cosmictraveler]

Is Iran asking for help? Burma? N. Korea? China?

You need to read the declaration better yet read the thread:rolleyes:

Actually N.Korea is asking for help and Russia is supplying them with nuclear building materials and know how. Burma is being aided by China as well. Iran has built their nuclear program with Russias help and has bought many military weapons from Russia as well.

[Lucysnow]

Cosmic IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION THEN GET OUT OF THE BLOODY THREAD!

[cosmictraveler]

You need not yell. I only was answering your question ...

"What right do nations have to interfere in the internal social, cultural, political and judicial policies of another sovereign state?"

If you do not like my answer I really do not understand why then you asked the question.

[Lucysnow]

You have nothing meaningful to add because you don't even understand the opening thread making your input inane and outside the topic. Now run along and be a dullard elsewhere.

[cosmictraveler]

I guess you just don't like to hear the truth , do you. :shrug:

[Lucysnow]

How is it that you confuse interference with aid? You don't understand what you are reading now either you read the thread and get with the program or you get out of the thread or I ask Tiassa to close the thread.

[Pandaemoni]

"Sovereignty" is a really myth. Certain nations are powerful enough to protect themselves from projections of the will of other political bodies and over the course of centuries they came to think of that as a quasi-"right" to be free from the unwanted demands of others.

Like all rights, though, it is only as good as your ability to enforce it (or your ability to have others enforce it against encrachment on your behalf). A right with no ability to enforce it is no right at all, just wishful thinking.

With "sovereignty" most nations *are* willing to collectively enforce another sovereign nation's right to it, by engaging in acts against the would-be interfering nations that cause them to back down and leave the target sovereign nation alone (or at least to think twice before the interference). Even the U.S., powerful though it is, feels some pressure from the world community when it "tramples" (for lack of a better word) the rights of other nations.

You do reach a point, though, where certain sovereign nations engage in bad acts that cause the world community to stop offering this recirprocal protection. These acts may not be that they themselves disregard the sovereignty of others (though it can be, as in Iraq prior to the First Gulf War or Iran's interference in Israel (or, if you prefer Israel's interference in Lebanon and elsewhere, to which Iran's actions may be seen as a reaction)). In some cases the bad act is simple brutality against one's own people, as in East Timor or Rwanda.

In those cases, without the support of the world order defending your nation's right to be sovereign, you can only defend it if you have the strength to defend it yourself. You must be able to, individually, inflict enough pain on a would be opponent to get them to back down (or at least creibly threaten that you have that power and the will to use it).

When your opponent (and would be interferer) is the U.S., few nations, taken individually, can offer up defense enough to defeat the U.S., or even significantly harm it, so when the U.S. wants something from you badly, being isolated on the world stage is a bad place to be.

Worse, the bad acts of such an isolated nation may be enough to convince multiple nations to intervene, each ignoring the so-called "right" (and I would say "no longer existing 'right'") of sovereignty.

The plus side to this is that it allows the world to intervene, sovereignty be damned, in nations before their bas acts spill over into regional conflicts. The less "sovereignty" the world recognizes, the safer I think we become.

[Lucysnow]

In those cases, without the support of the world order defending your nation's right to be sovereign, you can only defend it if you have the strength to defend it yourself. You must be able to, individually, inflict enough pain on a would be opponent to get them to back down (or at least creibly threaten that you have that power and the will to use it).
When your opponent (and would be interferer) is the U.S., few nations, taken individually, can offer up defense enough to defeat the U.S., or even significantly harm it, so when the U.S. wants something from you badly, being isolated on the world stage is a bad place to be. Worse, the bad acts of such an isolated nation may be enough to convince multiple nations to intervene, each ignoring the so-called "right" (and I would say "no longer existing 'right'") of sovereignty. The plus side to this is that it allows the world to intervene, sovereignty be damned, in nations before their bas acts spill over into regional conflicts. The less "sovereignty" the world recognizes, the safer I think we become.

Well what of Myanmar/Burma? They have successfully had a lock down on citizen rights with no regional conflict and they couldn't care less about the rest of the world even though they've been condemned through UN sanctions, these sanctions by the way have done nothing but impoverish local population and hasn't weakened the Junta. No country threatens it wilth invasion even though they have very little military might to stave off one except perhaps with the help of China which I believe is the power base that effectively keeps countries like the U.S at bay (this has also worked in the favor of Sudan). They're lack of interest in world opinion has rendered UN resolutions and their declaration of human rights null and void of weight. The people of Myanmar beg the world for intervention because not only have we made them feel as if we care for their plight but there is no political will to take any serious action against the Junta. The UN charter is a farce and not a reality, it doesn't prevent human right abuses and leaves open only the age-old method of brute force as a means of a check because it doesn't have the power to stave that off ie Iraq.

Would you advocate a world where their is less and less sovereignty and more and more UN enforcement?

[Pandaemoni]

Well what of Myanmar/Burma? They have successfully had a lock down on citizen rights with no regional conflict and they couldn't care less about the rest of the world even though they've been condemned through UN sanctions, these sanctions by the way have done nothing but impoverish local population and hasn't weakened the Junta. No country threatens it wilth invasion even though they have very little military might to stave off one except perhaps with the help of China which I believe is the power base that effectively keeps countries like the U.S at bay (this has also worked in the favor of Sudan). They're lack of interest in world opinion has rendered UN resolutions and their declaration of human rights null and void of weight. The people of Myanmar beg the world for intervention because not only have we made them feel as if we care for their plight but there is no political will to take any serious action against the Junta. The UN charter is a farce and not a reality, it doesn't prevent human right abuses and leaves open only the age-old method of brute force as a means of a check because it doesn't have the power to stave that off ie Iraq.

Would you advocate a world where their is less and less sovereignty and more and more UN enforcement?

I have to admit that I am not up to speed on any bad acts taken by Myanmar. Let's take you at your statement that they have locked down the riughts of their citizens and are generally oppressive:

First, whether they are "sovereign" is a purely semantic question. Of course they would maintain they are. If no one is messing with them, that assessment may well stand for most purposes. If someone were messing with them and Myanmar was successfully resisting, that assessment would likely stand as well. If they were resisting and failing, but the international community was rallying to them in defense of their "sovereignty" (in the sense of the "right" to be free of outside interference), then in common terms we'd still recognize Myanmar as sovereign. If they were resisting, but failing, and the world community was on the side of the intervening state, then Myanmar's sovereignty is meaningless, and in the case of any right that can't be enforced, I'd say there is no right. In that view, of course, everyone has an opinion on the existence of the "right" (and some people believe rights objectively exist, even when they are being trampled on or are as yet undiscovered by the people "entitled" to them). Since I view rights as a subjective creation of societies, subjective coinsiderations come to play in saying whether this right exists in Myanmar.

More practically, if an intervening state went after Myanmar, I suspect few would stand up in their defense, and I doubt they would have the wherewithal to stop any western nation that was set on interfereing with their internal politics. In that view, whether you say they have sovereignty or not doesn't matter, since they are still at the whims of other nations (who happen not to be imposing on them now).

I do not think the UN is "the body" that needs to intervene. Each nation makes its own decidions on whether to interfere. Some do so through the U.N. (which doesn't bother me) some do so unilaterally (whoich also doesn't bother me, though it makes the actor subject to collective action against it).

What I do not think is useful about sovereignty is that many nations feel hamstrung by it, as was the case in Rwanda. There the U.S. was damned either way because to invade would have meant violating Rwandan supposed "sovereignty", so we did not. The result is that we later apologized for letting the massacre there happen. Dmaned if you do, damned if you don't. Leaders and legal scholars whould recognize that sovereignty is a legal fiction arising out of the fact that no one likes an interloper, and nations will recirpocally defend others from interloping (with the real goal being to preserve one's pown right to be left alone). Sometimes nations do things that obviate any claim they may have to be left in peace, and I hate to see a legal fiction mask that.

[jps]

I don't believe that national sovereignty, in the abstract, has any moral significance, since a sovereign can be a democratic government or a tyrannical monarch exercising absolute authority over his citizens, or anything in between.
This doesn't mean that I think there is no moral significance to one country invading another, only that its not the result of any abstract notion of national sovereignty.

The citizens of a monarchy, who have heard nothing but positive things about their monarch from the state controlled media, may genuinely love him. The monarch, in turn, may actually provide the people with a decent standard of living, and a level of personal freedom.(think Liechtenstein) I think that a democratic country attempting to overthrow such a monarch either violently or through debilitating sanctions, in the name of democracy or human rights, would be probably be immoral. On the other hand, stepping in to support a popular democratic uprising against a hated tyrant, would probably not be immoral.

The concept of national sovereignty begins to take on inherent moral significance if you're dealing only with democracies, because then you could characterize the issue as the right to "self-determination." In this context, one nation interfering with another's internal affairs becomes both more problematic and less likely to be justified, as presumably, citizens of democratic governments have whatever level of freedom they vote to have. This gets more complicated if you have a majority voting to disenfranchise a minority, but that raises questions about what a democracy really is.

I would go as far to say that the declaration has failed to reach its goals because it is unrealistic as long as there are autonomous nations representing differing attitudes at different times.


I think you've gotten to the core of the issue here. The UN declaration of human rights has some lofty, and in my view laudable, ideals in it, but they will not be effective so long as there are nations with national sovereignty. Instead, the declaration serves as a justification for nations to act in their own self-interest.

Consider the U.S. policy toward Iraq. For many years, we had sanctions against the country, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died. You can argue that they died because Saddam didn't submit to our will, but be that as it may, the children are dead, and they would not be if we had not enacted the sanctions. Years later, we invaded the country, overthrew the government, and arranged for the election of a democratic government. Again, many thousands of people died. If our actions were purely motivated by democratic ideals, why the sanctions then the invasion? why not just invade? Because it was no judged to be in the national interest of the U.S. until it was done.

In contrast, in Sudan, the situation is worse than it was in Iraq under Saddam Hussein in many ways, but the U.S. is not really willing to do anything to change it. Again, not in the national interest. I don't mean to single out the U.S., every country acts in its perceived national interest.

Something like the Declaration of Human Rights can only be effective when democratic nations get together and agree to give up enough of their sovereignty to guarantee a basic floor of human rights for everyone. Unfortunately, ceding sovereignty will not be seen as in the national interest of powerful nations.

[Lucysnow]

Pandeamoni: First, whether they are "sovereign" is a purely semantic question. Of course they would maintain they are. If no one is messing with them, that assessment may well stand for most purposes. If someone were messing with them and Myanmar was successfully resisting, that assessment would likely stand as well. If they were resisting and failing, but the international community was rallying to them in defense of their "sovereignty" (in the sense of the "right" to be free of outside interference), then in common terms we'd still recognize Myanmar as sovereign. If they were resisting, but failing, and the world community was on the side of the intervening state, then Myanmar's sovereignty is meaningless, and in the case of any right that can't be enforced, I'd say there is no right. In that view, of course, everyone has an opinion on the existence of the "right" (and some people believe rights objectively exist, even when they are being trampled on or are as yet undiscovered by the people "entitled" to them). Since I view rights as a subjective creation of societies, subjective coinsiderations come to play in saying whether this right exists in Myanmar.


I agree with much of your statement. What I am curious about is whether this only render us with a might makes right policy? Its ludicrous to pretend that the UN charter on human rights has any weight, on a political level there is not much concern for human rights as the attitude by the U.S state department during the Rwanda genocide point out, its all rather lip-service and public window-washing. What is all comes down to is is military aggression in our interest or not. Either we do away with the pretense of the charter or we give the UN more power to enforce it.

[Lucysnow]

Something like the Declaration of Human Rights can only be effective when democratic nations get together and agree to give up enough of their sovereignty to guarantee a basic floor of human rights for everyone. Unfortunately, ceding sovereignty will not be seen as in the national interest of powerful nations.



Exactly. The examples you gave are among others exactly what I was referring to. Power whether with good or bad intentions never cedes power I agree but doesn't it look as if we could be heading in the direction of nations having to cede sovereignty? A kind of pyramid of power where the top five nations dictate what is allowed to take place within nations of lesser status. I don't see the West ceding power to guarantee human rights I see the western agenda being used as a guise to control other nations 'rogue nations' if you will.

JPS: The concept of national sovereignty begins to take on inherent moral significance if you're dealing only with democracies, because then you could characterize the issue as the right to "self-determination." In this context, one nation interfering with another's internal affairs becomes both more problematic and less likely to be justified, as presumably, citizens of democratic governments have whatever level of freedom they vote to have. This gets more complicated if you have a majority voting to disenfranchise a minority, but that raises questions about what a democracy really is.


I consider Israel a good example of how that works. With over 230 UN resolutions being passed against them they are still allowed the facade of a just working democracy.

It seems to me that if the UN has no place outside of hot air discussion is should be disbanded or modified.

[John99]

Cosmic IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION THEN GET OUT OF THE BLOODY THREAD!

You have nothing meaningful to add because you don't even understand the opening thread making your input inane and outside the topic. Now run along and be a dullard elsewhere.

I guess you just don't like to hear the truth , do you. :shrug:

How is it that you confuse interference with aid? You don't understand what you are reading now either you read the thread and get with the program or you get out of the thread or I ask Tiassa to close the thread.

Nice. This is why i dont bother with you.

[John99]

And i got a warning for saying you were on a high horse. unwarranted high horse.

[Lucysnow]

So don't bother.

[jps]

Exactly. The examples you gave are among others exactly what I was referring to. Power whether with good or bad intentions never cedes power I agree but doesn't it look as if we could be heading in the direction of nations having to cede sovereignty? A kind of pyramid of power where the top five nations dictate what is allowed to take place within nations of lesser status. I don't see the West ceding power to guarantee human rights I see the western agenda being used as a guise to control other nations 'rogue nations' if you will.

I agree that there seems to be a trend toward this internationally. Its remarkable whats happened with the EU over the last decade or so.
The catch is the United States. It has yet to agree to any treaty that would subject its citizens to the authority of an international court, and zealously protects all aspects of its sovereignty in virtually every arena. It also ignores treaties that it has signed when they conflict with its perceived national interest, by redefining their terms (think convention against torture, Geneva conventions). I think the scenario you describe of powerful western nations using the guise of human rights to control other nations will become more prevalent, but I think it will not coincide with the U.S. ceding any of its sovereignty, even nominally, at least in the forseeable future. Consider how immediately the U.S. dismissed Sarkozy's suggestion that an international financial regulator be created.

I think that the non-binding declaration of human rights serves adequately as an excuse to interfere with other nations, and a more binding treaty would just complicate things for the U.S. As it stands, the U.S. can ignore it without serious objection because it is not binding. It can also enforce it against other nations, without serious consequences, because other nation's cannot impose consequences on the U.S. that would not seriously harm their own interests. The declaration gives them adequate cover to let these things slide, without openly acknowledging the elephant in the room, that the U.S. away with all this stuff because nobody can stop them, and that's all.


I consider Israel a good example of how that works. With over 230 UN resolutions being passed against them they are still allowed the facade of a just working democracy.

It seems to me that if the UN has no place outside of hot air discussion is should be disbanded or modified.

The U.N. does some good work, but as far as mediating disputes and guaranteeing human rights, it is largely ineffective. Israel is a good example of this. It is also a good example of another nation that will not be ceding its sovereignty in the interest of establishing a basic floor of human rights anytime soon, as this would require it to change its treatment of the Palestinians significantly, and in a manner that it would view as contrary to its national interest.

[S.A.M.]

The idea of nationalism was created as a tool for exploitation. So why not the notion of enforced liberty? Egalitarianism is a myth anyway. All the societies that pretend to be egalitarian have been built on exploitation.

[Pandaemoni]

What I am curious about is whether this only render us with a might makes right policy?

On the question of "when is it 'wrong' to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation?" one could see what I am saying as might makes right, but I think that misses some subtleties. Take the world as it exists today, with a militarily dominant US. If our western allies band together, it does not take very many of them for cause the US some degree of political discomfort. That discomfort may not be enough to prevent the US from doing what it wants to do (as was the case in Iraq), but it is a real cost imposed on us. So were we "wrong" to invade? I good part of relevant opinion seems to think so, both inside and outside the U.S. So despite the military might, and despite the fact that Iraq was in no position to stop us or put up a credible defense, it is not clear that US military might made us "right" in the face of the objections of our allies.

That said, I don't find it especially meaningful to say that reason we may have been wrong to invade Iraq was that we were violating its "sovereignty." The real reason other nations objected was a generalized fear that our future interventions may have more direct negative consequences on those other nations (either they would be invaded or some interest of theirs would otherwise be impaired). It is that fear that is the basis for why nations tend to pefend (in word and action) the so-called "sovereignty" of other nations.

[Lucysnow]

The idea of nationalism was created as a tool for exploitation. So why not the notion of enforced liberty? Egalitarianism is a myth anyway. All the societies that pretend to be egalitarian have been built on exploitation.

I am not sure if I understand you here. Do you mean all nationalism? Because I think the palestinians also have a nationalist agenda. I agree that said societies have been built on exploitation but an enforced liberty might work in the favor of the palestinian cause. Or do you think otherwise?

[Lucysnow]

That said, I don't find it especially meaningful to say that reason we may have been wrong to invade Iraq was that we were violating its "sovereignty." The real reason other nations objected was a generalized fear that our future interventions may have more direct negative consequences on those other nations (either they would be invaded or some interest of theirs would otherwise be impaired). It is that fear that is the basis for why nations tend to pefend (in word and action) the so-called "sovereignty" of other nations.

If this be the case then I think everyone should shut up about the behaviour of N.Korea in terms of missile defense, same with Iran. From this point of view they are absolutely correct to build a reliable defense against outside agendas. If threat is the only means of securing ones sovereignty and human rights is little more than a footnote, all conferences on the matter are little more than window dressing to hide the fact that brute deterence is the only matter at hand. The Russians also were quite correct to go into Georgia with a heavy hand and its quite obvious that any criticism based on 'sovereignty' were hypocritical. I think the US has created a deadly precedence.

[Pandaemoni]

If this be the case then I think everyone should shut up about the behaviour of N.Korea in terms of missile defense, same with Iran. From this point of view they are absolutely correct to build a reliable defense against outside agendas. If threat is the only means of securing ones sovereignty and human rights is little more than a footnote, all conferences on the matter are little more than window dressing to hide the fact that brute deterence is the only matter at hand. The Russians also were quite correct to go into Georgia with a heavy hand and its quite obvious that any criticism based on 'sovereignty' were hypocritical. I think the US has created a deadly precedence.


In a sense they are absolutely rational to build those defenses. The problem is that once built they become a powerful weapon to use in intervening *by* Iran and N. Korea because they help shield them against retaliation. The same fear arises in the world community, that the actions of Iran and N. Korea today merely set the stage for their doing things more directly detrimental to other nations in the future. As a result, those other nations don't cry "sovereignty" on behalf of Iran and N. Korea (though they do for Cuba as against the U.S. on occasion), because Iran and North Korea are the "problem."

That said, there is no doubt in my mind that if you are a belligerant state that is likely to draw the wrath of members of the world community (for good or bad reasons), then you want nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter how tiny and otherwise insignificant you are, having nuclear weapons makes it far less likely that anyone will take topppling your regime lightly.

[Lucysnow]

But N. Korea only went about their nuke program when Bush, in 2002 I believe, named them as part of the axis of evil, even though they were isolated, dependent on China and starving as usual. Before that speech I cannot recall when anyone even bothered to think about them. I doubt they have any intention of using their force for anything other than sending the message 'leave us alone'. I am not even convinced that Iran wants nukes outside of sourcing their energy needs and forcing Israel to think twice about their behaviour vis a vis their neighbors.

A great example of U.S fears of islamic expansion is Somalia. They intefered with a popular islamist movement by intalling a transitional federal government in 2007.

"The phenomenon of Islamic Courts in ‘stateless’ Somalia first appeared in north Mogadishu in August 1994. After nearly four years of persistent anarchy and political failures, Islamic clerics from the locally Introduction powerful Abgal sub-clan of the Hawiye (Somalia’s largest and currently most powerful clan), with the blessing of their ‘secular’ political leaders, founded the first fully functioning sharia court. The establishment of the Islamic Courts was not so much an Islamist imperative as a response to the need or some means of upholding law and order." Chatham House


Instead of leaving well enough alone, the U.S fearing a rise in terrorist groups went ahead with covert operations assassinating members involved with the courts even though the courts had restored social services, charitable services peace and order by uniting Mogadishu's various militia groups etc. They had the backing of local businessmen and as far as the average citizen was concerned filled a much needed gap.

"The US government is convinced that non-Somali terror suspects were sheltered in Mogadishu by elements connected to the Islamic Courts Union. There is a reasonable case for suspecting that there has been some connection between Al-Qaeda and related East African cells and radical figures in Somalia, though not necessarily with the mainstream
Courts leadership. However, the Courts’ lack of transparency on this issue of terror led to greater international pressure.All the indications are that the Islamic Courts’ Supreme Council was seriously divided on the diplomatic position and on negotiations with the Transitional Government and external players, especially the Ethiopians who by now had considerable numbers of troops on the ground. These difficulties were exacerbated by the US and Ethiopian
connivance in international diplomatic activity culminating in the ill-advised United Nations resolution 1725 authorizing the deployment of an African Union peacekeeping mission. Since the Courts had always rejected the idea of such an external peacekeeping force, this encouraged the ‘hawks’ (not just al-Shabaab) within the Supreme Council to think
there was an international conspiracy against them." Chatham

"the UN estimates that more than 100,000 civilians have fled from Mogadishu as a result of the recent fighting,15and significant areas of west Mogadishu have been destroyed. A series of peace deals between the Ethiopian army and Hawiye clan Whatever the short-term future holds, the complex social forces behind the rise of the Islamic Courts will
not go away. Indeed while warlords and secular governments have come and gone, the Islamic Courts have enjoyed relatively consistent support for over a decade. They have tended to garner support when the populace are fed up with insecurity and ineffectual and corrupt politicians. For these reasons alone, as well as the likely long-term failure of the Transitional Federal Government’s reliance on foreign protection and unwillingness to reconcile with armed opponents,
the forces behind the Islamic Courts – in one form or another – are likely to rise again." Chatham

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/9130_bpsomalia0407.pdf

The rest is history as they say; no government, militia violence, instablitiy for the citizens and those who venture into Somali waters. If Somalia didn't hate the U.S before they surely do now, if they were neutral in regards to spreading terrorist threats they may not be in the future. U.S interference caused nothing but disaster, there must be a better way of handling foreign affairs than this.

[swarm]

I think a better, or maybe more realistic question would be not when is it right or wrong, but when is it necessary to intervene in the affairs of another nation?

[Lucysnow]

I think a better, or maybe more realistic question would be not when is it right or wrong, but when is it necessary to intervene in the affairs of another nation?

Well my first reaction would be to say during a genocide or something like that but we only have to look at the half-hearted attempts at UN intervention in srebencia, Rwanda and Sudan to know that they make these overtures for show, not with any real intent. The U.S state deparment were asked for help before the genocide even occured as it was known on the ground that the massacre was coming and they turned their back on the situation. So outside of self-interest there seem to be no reason to intervene in the affairs of another nation.

[Baron Max]

...in srebencia, Rwanda and Sudan... The U.S state deparment were asked for help before the genocide even occured as it was known on the ground that the massacre was coming and they turned their back on the situation. ...

And yet, if the USA had intervened and things in Rwanda, et al, hadn't turned out absolutely perfect and Utopian, you and SAM and others like you would have been the first to cast blame and hatred towards the USA!

See? You want the USA to help in "terrible situations", yet when they try, people like you are the first to yell and scream and accuse the US of empire building or something worse. We tried to help in Somalia and you've accused us of causing even worse problems. What do you want of us?

The USA should become totally, absolutely, isolationist ...completely withdraw from interacting with the rest of the world. Of course, if we did, people would blame the USA for not helping! Fucked if we do, fucked if we don't.

Baron Max

[quadraphonics]

What do you want of us?

An all-purpose bogey-man that can be blamed for any and every problem, obviously. It's not as anti-Americanism is some new phenomenon or something...

[Lucysnow]

And yet, if the USA had intervened and things in Rwanda, et al, hadn't turned out absolutely perfect and Utopian, you and SAM and others like you would have been the first to cast blame and hatred towards the USA!

See? You want the USA to help in "terrible situations", yet when they try, people like you are the first to yell and scream and accuse the US of empire building or something worse. We tried to help in Somalia and you've accused us of causing even worse problems. What do you want of us?

The USA should become totally, absolutely, isolationist ...completely withdraw from interacting with the rest of the world. Of course, if we did, people would blame the USA for not helping! Fucked if we do, fucked if we don't.

Baron Max

No Baron you are missing the point. A nation like China wouldn't intervene but they don't pretend to be the leaders in human rights, wagging their pointy fingers at every other nation judging whether they're a democracy or not or whether their speech, women, gays etc are free or not.
Russia will intervene only when it is in their national interest and they say so without pretending to pander to human rights etc.

The U.S on the other hand are 'good' remember? They desperately try to get the world to think of them as doing 'good', as having the moral high-ground and being essentially 'good' not even good but better vis a vis other nations in the world of international politics. Yet everyone, save american people, know that your foreign policy vis a vis human rights sucks! You guys are still riding on your WW2, Korea hero status and you haven't been able to prove it since. 'Vietnam', illegal bombings in Lao and Cambodia, covert operations in africa like Somalia and the middle-east, remember the great job you guys did in Iran propping the Shah whom they all hated and paving the path of your nemesis the Ayatollah?

So no they shouldn't bother to intervene period. What they should do is MIND THEIR BUSINESS, stop going on about human rights as if they actually give a shit about people in other nations. Rwanda played itself out naturally but I will remind you of US apathy:

"Western powers, particularly the United States and France which compete for geopolitical control of Central Africa, disposed all the required resources to cease the carnage. A brigade of US marines or French paratroopers could efficiently pacify the raging crowds, isolating local provocateurs and assisting the local government in maintaining the state of emergency. But Washington and Paris preferred to refrain from intervention – in the same way as in Kampuchea. Why? Did they grudge manpower for the mission? But in 1991, American and French forces did intervene in Kuwait, despite absence of humanitarian urgency.

The striking indifference of Washington and Paris to the tragedy of Rwanda in 1994 was explained with focusing of geopolitical propaganda on the Balkan conflict. Attention of the media audience to the ethnic war between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes in Africa was then inexpedient, as the priority task was to associate the "brutal" Serbs with the "image of evil". Therefore, a scores bloodier ethnic war in Africa was blacked out.

For fifteen years, most of the Western media audience has still been unaware of the fact that in early 1990s, the era of the West's prosperity, dozens of thousands people daily perished in the former Belgian colony of Rwanda. The horrible truth of the Rwandan carnage is downplayed until today. That is not surprising: a substantive discussion on Rwanda would make any assertions of the United States and France for the role of guarantors of international security and observation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights merely ridiculous."

http://www.rpmonitor.ru/en/en/detail.php?ID=13007&print=Y


So Baron you are wrong.I am not so naive to think that the US does these things because of its innate 'goodness'. I DO think you should mind your business and stay out of the affairs of others. Truth be known Rwanda's situation worked out the way it worked out but at the cost on hundreds of thousands.

You know what's funny the Dalai Lama had once asked the U.S for help when he was still in Tibet and the Chinese were threatening full take over. The U.S declined. Why shouldn't they decline, Tibet is small, isolated, in China's backyard making it difficult to engage with the Chinese without actually fighting the Chinese.

I understand fully why they declined, it made sense to decline. What galls me though is when they use the Dalai Lama after the fact as a sticking point to the Chinese, trying to make themselves look good by supporting Tibetan rights, speaking out against their evil COMPETITORS when they flatly would have let the Dalai Lama die. But who knew he would become such an international hero after the fact? The americans certainly didnt. Its hysterical, its a nation of hypocrisy. Even the idea of Eleanor Roosevelt helping write the UN's declaration of human rights in 1948 when racism and jim crow were in full swing in their own country, thereby violating the charter itself as they dole out advice, accuse others of violating the charter...well I cannot but help find it all too funny, like the monty python version of a 'great nation'.

But I expect you'll still continue the spin.:rolleyes:

[S.A.M.]

I am not sure if I understand you here. Do you mean all nationalism? Because I think the palestinians also have a nationalist agenda. I agree that said societies have been built on exploitation but an enforced liberty might work in the favor of the palestinian cause. Or do you think otherwise?

Did the Palestinians have a choice in being nationalistic?

[Lucysnow]

Being nationalistic can be done as a group even if they have lost access to the land, sometimes especially if they've don't have land as it unites them. The early zionists didn't have access to the land at the time of conception, the abuses of jews throughout Europe coupled with a nationalist idea brought about the effort towards creation of Israel.

[tim840]

Cosmic IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION THEN GET OUT OF THE BLOODY THREAD!

You need not yell. I only was answering your question ...

"What right do nations have to interfere in the internal social, cultural, political and judicial policies of another sovereign state?"

If you do not like my answer I really do not understand why then you asked the question.

You have nothing meaningful to add because you don't even understand the opening thread making your input inane and outside the topic. Now run along and be a dullard elsewhere.

I guess you just don't like to hear the truth , do you. :shrug:

How is it that you confuse interference with aid? You don't understand what you are reading now either you read the thread and get with the program or you get out of the thread or I ask Tiassa to close the thread.

Why can't you just accept that he may have a different opinion than you?? you and cosmic obviously have conflicting thoughts about interventionism. just because his opinion is different doesn't mean he doesn't understand the topic, you idiot. he was merely responding to your query, as can be edxpected when you ask a question on a forum (duh) and you attacked him for defending interventionist policy... what were you expecting, that everyone would jump in and condemn the western world and America for their horrid, aggrandizing, disreputable empire-builiding?? jerk...

[Baron Max]

No, Baron, you are missing the point. ...
So, no, they shouldn't bother to intervene period. ...
So Baron you are wrong. ...

So no nation or people should ever try to help any other nation or people ...ever? ...for fear that something might go wrong and cause problems later? No money, no equipment, no research, no medicines, ...., no nothing, because something might go wrong at some future date?

You're suggesting pure and absolute isolationism all over the world, Lucy. There simply ain't no other way to take your posts. Oh, either that or all nations should consult with you before they make any moves to help anyone or do anything. Is that it, Lucy?

Baron Max

[Lucysnow]

Why can't you just accept that he may have a different opinion than you?? you and cosmic obviously have conflicting thoughts about interventionism. just because his opinion is different doesn't mean he doesn't understand the topic, you idiot. he was merely responding to your query, as can be edxpected when you ask a question on a forum (duh) and you attacked him for defending interventionist policy... what were you expecting, that everyone would jump in and condemn the western world and America for their horrid, aggrandizing, disreputable empire-builiding?? jerk...

Look at the thead. Does it sound as if I am discussing 'aid'. Cosmic is talking of aid not unwanted or manipulated interference. There is a difference. So since you obviously also don't understand the thread focus and obviously have nothing to add to the discussion save your stupid diatribe please kindly PISS OFF!

[Lucysnow]

So no nation or people should ever try to help any other nation or people ...ever? ...for fear that something might go wrong and cause problems later? No money, no equipment, no research, no medicines, ...., no nothing, because something might go wrong at some future date?

You're suggesting pure and absolute isolationism all over the world, Lucy. There simply ain't no other way to take your posts. Oh, either that or all nations should consult with you before they make any moves to help anyone or do anything. Is that it, Lucy?

Baron Max

Help comes through aid not coercion. Money, equipment, research all you mentioned is aid. Proping up proxy governments, leaders or militias because they serve your political interest is not aid its interference. Toppling a government because they do not meet your political ends is not aid. And no I am not advocating isolationism.

For example the U.S wanted democratic elections in Gaza, they had them. The U.S disliked the outcome and then politically maneuvered to have all finacial aid cutt off and I don't mean just american aid. There were countries like Norway and Russia that disagreed and refused to politically and financially isolate them yet still the U.S has done everything possible to stress the people of Gaza in a fundamental way so that they change their minds about a democraticaly elected government. In short they did everything possible to add instability. They did this by crying 'human rights' claiming that the Hamas is a terrroist organization, obviously the people of Gaza didn't think so, to them Hamas is a legitimate political party.

Another example are sanctions. Burma has been sanctioned under the cry of 'human rights' but it hasn't helped oust the ruling Junta, it only serves to further impoverish the country and people. We did the same under Sadam and it caused such havoc for the Iraqi people as basic infrastructure, culture and medical supplies became so scarce or declined that they suffered enormous hardship. It didn't change the internal political atmosphere in the country. Also the U.S had tried to sponser a coup using the minority Kurds. It failed because they were not properly supported and the outcome was the chemical attack as punishment by Sadam's regime. The propped and corrupt Shah of Iran, placed there because it was U.S friendly should be a historical lesson as to how that kind of involvement can turn around and bite you in the ass. As a matter of fact when since WW2 when has it ever worked out the way the U.S has wanted? Not in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan, Iraq nor Cambodia, nor Lao, not in Vietnam nor Somalia to name a few.

When do you people ever learn? Oh I forgot its the United States of Amnesia.:rolleyes:

[Baron Max]

Help comes through aid not coercion. Money, equipment, research all you mentioned is aid. Proping up proxy governments, leaders or militias because they serve your political interest is not aid its interference.

So WHO does the USA give "aid" to? ...just toss the money out onto the ground and let the people fight for it? If we give aid to one group, another might be pissed off at us. If we give aid to another group, some other competing nation might get pissed off.

Aid? Lucy, who do we give that aid to ....without causing any problems with anyone in the world because of it?

When do you people ever learn? Oh I forgot its the United States of Amnesia....

Lucy Snow, Empress of 20/20 Hindsight and Future Crystal Ball Readings! :rolleyes:

Baron Max

[Lucysnow]

So WHO does the USA give "aid" to? ...just toss the money out onto the ground and let the people fight for it? If we give aid to one group, another might be pissed off at us. If we give aid to another group, some other competing nation might get pissed off.

Aid? Lucy, who do we give that aid to ....without causing any problems with anyone in the world because of it?
lucy Snow, Empress of 20/20 Hindsight and Future Crystal Ball Readings! :rolleyes:

Baron Max

History has lessons to learn from. The U.S gives aid like mosquito nets and other assistance for example but sometimes they do it for a change in internal policy not out of altruism or actual need on the ground. Learn to read opening threads to know what the theme is instead of jumping in and assuming aid means unwanted political interference under the guise of human rights. Respond to the many examples I gave or give your own historically accurate examples otherwise there is no discussion, just me dealing with you after a night of miller beer in your texas trailer.

[Baron Max]

History has lessons to learn from. The U.S gives aid like mosquito nets and other assistance for example ....

The USA once gave thousands/millions of mosquito nets to families in some central African country to protect the children from malaria. A bunch of rebels stole those nets and used them to bribe the people into joining their rebellious cause against the existing government.

So, I ask again, Lucy, how can we possibly know who to help and how? Or is it that ONLY YOU can know ....because of your expert 20/20 hindsight and crystal ball readings?

You're suggesting, in reality, absolute isolationism for the USA ....you just can't see it so easily because you're too busy finding world problems to blame on the USA.

Baron Max

[Lucysnow]

And so? They gave millions to mosquito nets? How does it address the examples I gave you where they were interfering and not giving direct aid relief. Go and look at the examples I gave and address them there are many. Explain why the U.S has dropped more bombs than mosqito nets. In the case of the U.S they probably should isolate for a while, they have been causing harm to a great many people for a long time now. It was once a country of great hope and now its a deep global disappointment. They've shit on their own great name. I don't have to go out of my way to make up U.S fuck ups. They offer them on a historical gold platter:D

[Baron Max]

... How does it address the examples I gave you where they were interfering and not giving direct aid relief. Go and look at the examples I gave and address them.

Address your 20/20 hindsight???? Yeah, sure, but how could anyone have known how something might or might not have turned out? See?

Your hindsight is a really good, Lucy, but it doesn't address the real issue .....how can a government ever know what the future might be because of any of it's actions?

Lucy, if you want to show us all how fuckin' great you are, why not start right now and make a sticky thread .....and forecast all of the future results of all of the actions by all of the governments in the world?

20/20 hindsight is pretty good ....but let's see some 20/20 foresight, Lucy!

Baron Max

[Lucysnow]

No Baron address the history. I know you lot don't seem to know too much about history but perhaps you can look at my examples and try. Show a little acumen for a change, a little knowledge. You haven't addressed one objective point so far my furry old beer filled curmudgeon:D

I have to take a nap. I'll check with you later.

[Saven]

It may be their own country.. but it's ALL of ours planet. They don't have the right to torture or kill whoever they like, as long as it is happening here on Earth.

[Lucysnow]

It may be their own country.. but it's ALL of ours planet. They don't have the right to torture or kill whoever they like, as long as it is happening here on Earth.

That's so cute, you think the 'earth' belongs to you.


You see Baron you guys are already isolated.:rolleyes:

[Oli]

The United States, although now virtually synonymous with science and technology, is not central to the discussion since in comparison with Europe, it was isolated enough during the period of its industrialisation, virtually to be able to dispense with foreign policy. One consequence (still to be detected) was an ingrained tendency to regard the problems of foreign relations as sudden developments - usually unwelcome - which, however, could be 'fixed' by an appropriate and quick reaction. From the presidency of Andrew Jackson until after the Second World War American opinion rejected the traditional European notion that foreign policy was a matter of continuous engagement with other powers in order to defend the international interests of the state and that its essential aim was to reach accommodation through rational argument. The objectives and practices of diplomacy were damned as either Machiavellian or trivial. The crusading element in American policy-making requires that conflicts are won, not that differences are accommodated; exercises in game theory replace rational negotiation.
Maurice Pearson.
The Knowledgeable State: Diplomacy, War and Technology since 1830.

[Lucysnow]

Thanks Oli for the excerpt.

'The crusading element in American policy-making requires that conflicts are won, not that differences are accommodated;..'

Now I know why discussions on sciforums often mirrors this.

No but seriously, why do they not reform this tactic as it creates more problems than solutions? Or maybe they like the idea of creating chaos for other nations? Maybe they benefit from instability? But it doesn't look like it, everything now seems to be damage control. In many respects China's attitude to foreign engagement is much more straight forward, its exhange of resources and with no clauses, its a non-interference in foreign domestic issues

This download is an interesting paper on the internationals engagement, or lack thereof with Burma and the results on domestic policy.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/49

[Oli]

Thanks Oli for the excerpt.
Pure fluke: I just started reading that book yesterday and that paragraph leapt off the page at me.

No but seriously, why do they not reform this tactic as it creates more problems than solutions?
Is it not a side-effect of the "youth" of the US?
It didn't grow up with neighbours the way, say France, did, with a centuries-long history of conflict and accommodation.
America hasn't had to learn "diplomacy" the way European countries have: once the US took off it was large and isolated enough to have little more than its own internal problems and/ or fewer belligerent neighbours on an equal military footing.
And then by the time the US moved onto the world stage in earnest it was sufficiently strong to continue with its own methodologies - and that continued use, in turn, contributes to the "no need to use the old-world" methods attitude.
Possibly.

[Saven]

That's so cute, you think the 'earth' belongs to you.


You see Baron you guys are already isolated.:rolleyes:

The people you all are excusing from atrocities certainly think their countries "belong" to them, if they think that they have an inherent right to hurt other people because that's where they were born. I'm of the camp where either we all collectively own every part of the Earth, or no one owns it at all. The end result of those two perspectives is the same.