[danholo]

I was wondering due to the current discussion in Today's News about North Korea sinking a South Korean ship, as how to topple dictatorships that obviously are just destructive to their own societies and to their surroundings. Are we responsible as the outsider to topple these regimes (like the US did with Iraq quite amateurishly) or do we just deal with them normally, not giving a hoot about the conditions within a country. Why is it our responsibility? How do we help? Do we even have to? Is it arrogant to assume they "need help"? Obviously, in the case of North Korea, a military option seems like the only effective one but still not viable as the sacrifice would be extremely high, and is that an option, at all...? Or is it up to the people within to understand for themselves to topple their dictator, and at the same time for the international community to embrace this country, possibly normalize relations? Would this open up the people there to realize or would the iron grip of the state keep the populace under check?

What's the correct form of action? What's an effective form of action? See, it seems like contemporary politicians seem to be completely powerless against regimes like North Korea, who is led by a madman (or just a guy with low-esteem cause he's short and stupid looking), or Iran who is led by a religious guard. Should we just foster understanding and let these nations live it out through anything, just do business with them? This seems like how Brazil is conducting its foreign policy today, at least, and I think will give them a lot of opportunities.

Secondly what are each parties' demands for a normalization of ties...? I can't find on Ggl.

[Potemkin]

Should we just foster understanding and let these nations live it out through anything, just do business with them?

If they're not a threat to us, then just leave them alone. Don't sell them helicopter gunships or anything like that, but don't invade them either. Live and let live.

[danholo]

So, they are like M-class planets who shouldn't meddled with until they invent warp drive?

[Cookie Monster]

Kinda, but what makes you so confident that your planet is so suitable for intergalactic civilisation. The point I raised with die and let die is that we are not that far off from those whom we fancy to liberate.

[pikachu]

How do we help?

I think of it this way. Say, there is a person around who is doing heavy drugs and living an obviously self-destructive lifestyle. His health and financial situation is very poor as a result. What would I do in this situation? Unless he requests that I help him somehow, I will not bother him. It's his life and his right to live it the way he wants. If he looks like the kind of person who is capable of harming others due to poor mental condition, but hasn't done it yet - there is nothing to sue or arrest him for, all I can do is take necessary precautions to ensure my safety.
It's not that different on the international arena. You don't like the North Korean government - ok. You have the right to publicly disapprove of their policies, you have the right to restrict trade with them if you want, but threatening them or pressuring them to change is a no-go area. If you are truly selflessly interested in the living conditions of the North Koreans and it pains you to see them live poorly - why don't you just send them a ton of free food, free medicine, and free computers? I'm sure their government wouldn't mind at all, so it's up to you. If you're such a liberal bleeding heart, then instead of using a computer to access PoFo, I invite you to donate this computer to some North Korean school.

Anyway, all governments can rise and fall due to internal reasons. If and when the North Koreans actually decide that they are truly sick of their present government, the government WILL collapse.

[Wolfman]

I think it would be a good thing if it was possible for a country to invade another (repressive) regime and replace it with a regime which does good unto it's people. However, several problems are encountered in attempting to do so:
1. How does one determine what a repressive/non-repressive regime is?
2. How do you plan on replacing that regime?
3. Who should fight the regime (neighbors, a super power, the UN?)
4. How should the new regime be set up?
5. Who gets to make the new Constitution?
6. How do you prevent the new regime from betraying the country?
7. If the regime has been around awhile, the populace might fear any outsiders (basically a nation-wide case of Stockholm Syndrome), how do you get the population behind the invaders and the new regime?

And I'm sure there's more, I just cann't think of them.

[Donna]

Foreign intervention would probably render the succeeding regime with very little legitimacy, thus another dictatorship in another sense, so it is a pointless venture.

[DubiousDan]

Since the great powers have a long record of installing dictators, it’s a little difficult to see how you can justly remove them externally. The United States has been a consistent offender in this respect.
If you tried to create an international agency to police states, the United States would be the first to veto it. That is, unless the United States had total control and could pick and choose which dictatorships to overthrow.
As it is, it is quite likely that the United States, itself, will be a dictatorship in the not too distant future. It really doesn’t have far to go.

[redcarpet]

I agree with the general international consensus of illegal wars an internal affairs. As the Ch. of the UN defined;

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

.

The fact a country is a dictatorship is irrelevant. If the Iraq War was launched legally(after an Iraqi attack on say Kuwait again, or Iran) and a UN force invaded Iraq, they would leave say 3 or 4 months after setting a new format for WMD inspectors and not change the government(in compliance with Article 41 of the Ch. of the UN & section 7 of Article 2 of Ch. 1).

Putting aside the fact I'm a pacifist, so I can enter this discussion, war must only ever be waged in self-defense/retaliation against an armed attack by another nation-state. And only to the extent the aggressor's military forces are significantly defeated so that the overall strength is halved, etc, and or long-range attack capability(like air forces & long-range missiles) only is targeted.

[danholo]

So dictatorships are allowed to act as bullies because they don't join the rest of the world in peaceful dialogue, or are they just being needlessly harassed by the "brainwashed" rest of the world who pick on the little guy, who just wants to rule over his people in peace?

I mean, balance, guys?

[Eauz]

Your best option, would be to give up your moral philosophy of what is right and wrong and either cut all ties with the country or gain, economically from the country, as China is currently doing in Africa.

[danholo]

I guess that is the best option, considering that the best for the Korean people can be only decided by themselves. Too bad they have no power to do so, and I guess it has to be left at that. The Monarch wins.


This guy also has the best theme song in history and a music video to boot (with Karaoke!):

[youtube]K907lLUzmC0[/youtube]

People's fate depends on you, Comrade Kim Jong-il!

Kinda, but what makes you so confident that your planet is so suitable for intergalactic civilisation.

When did I ever display such confidence or even hint at the notion...?

[Red_Army]

Foreign intervention is ridiculous as a form of humanitarian aid because of the simple hypocrisy edified by the classic Vietnam war slogan: "We had to destroy the village to save it". Once dozens of their friends and loved ones are blasted to kingdom come then who is going to care about access to McDonalds or voting or any of that shit?

Nah, revolution has to come from the people themselves to have any legitimacy and even then things don't always turn out right. In the end, there are horrible situations all over the world, but full scale intervention is too broad of a sword to wield humanely, and since the suffering of civilians is the motivation for your concern - you obviously want to minimize civilian casualties.

[Igor Antunov]

Foreign intervention is ridiculous as a form of humanitarian aid because of the simple hypocrisy edified by the classic Vietnam war slogan: "We had to destroy the village to save it". Once dozens of their friends and loved ones are blasted to kingdom come then who is going to care about access to McDonalds or voting or any of that shit?

Nah, revolution has to come from the people themselves to have any legitimacy and even then things don't always turn out right. In the end, there are horrible situations all over the world, but full scale intervention is too broad of a sword to wield humanely, and since the suffering of civilians is the motivation for your concern - you obviously want to minimize civilian casualties.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Verv]

Revolution does not have to come from the people themselves.

Look what some ideas were able to do in Iran, Japan, China, Germany, South Korea...

Governments are able to mold people to their wills, and that's that.

People are weak, malleable.

The people's will has never mattered -- if they do not like it, you can just present some basic, simple ideas and you can succeed.

This is precisely why democracy is bunk.

"I got an idea... Let's indoctrinate kids in schools and have the media present ideas, and convince the people that they are actually electing people from some profound inner idea about right and wrong that they have come up with themselves."

If you teach someone how to kick and punch, they will kick and punch as how you taught them.

If yout each someone how to think, they will generally think as how you taught them.

And thus when it is time to vote: they will vote as you taught them.

[Maas]

Nah, revolution has to come from the people themselves to have any legitimacy and even then things don't always turn out right. In the end, there are horrible situations all over the world, but full scale intervention is too broad of a sword to wield humanely, and since the suffering of civilians is the motivation for your concern - you obviously want to minimize civilian casualties.

wont happen any time soon... They are so indoctrinated. The North Korean government sure knows how to do that well.

There is also some other thing that can happen. if their leaders all die in the same airplane crash / train crash... than that might be the key for THEM to make some changes. It either that or when leadership is passed on to somebody else. Kind of like in China who made some big changes too.

[Fasces]

Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships. Personally, I feel the West should remove the North Korean leadership, and install some North Korean general to replace them that will be more sane.

[Red_Army]

Verv, I'm not arguing that military intervention to overthrow a regime is impossible, not at all - just that its not the humane thing to do. You are killing more people than you're saving. In essence you are changing cosmetic appearance and ignoring the real issue: human suffering.

That is, unless you want to admit to the imperialist motive.

[Zoetrope]

Fasces

Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships.

With all due respect...Vangelis, I don't believe that every country that was ever under the rule of a dictatorship permanently remained under dictatorial rule forever.

Personally, I feel the West should remove the North Korean leadership, and install some North Korean general to replace them that will be more sane.

We may not even have to. From what I've read, the thing Kim Jong-Il is most afraid of is his own military. That's one of the reasons he keeps throwing so much money into his military programs to keep his general's nice and happy (and non-ambitious.)


-

[Fasces]

With all due respect...Vangelis, I don't believe that every country that was ever under the rule of a dictatorship permanently remained under dictatorial rule forever.

I will rephrase: Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships by foreign intervention. A dictatorship cannot be replaced directly with a democracy without disastrous results, unless a country is willing to forcibly uphold that government for multiple decades.