What Should Be Done About Abhorrent Regimes?

[Adam Smith]

At present the world community does not appear to have any general policy for dealing with regimes whose conduct is abhorrent. Most cases are dealt with on an ad hoc basis, in part because each case has its own unique issues, and in part because there does not appear to be any consensus on how to proceed.

Assume for the sake of discussion that the UN Security Council begins by passing a resolution stating the the conduct of a particular government is "abhorrent to civilized nations". Assume that such a resolution might apply to situations such as Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Myamar, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Rwanda, or Serbia.

(Israel and Palestine are excluded from consideration here because there are arguably two sides to that conflict, and becuase I don't want this to turn into yet another ME thread. The US and France are excluded because such a resolution would never get through the Security Council, and because we already have enough flames on this topic.)

So what should the policy be for dealing with abhorrent regimes? Feel free to select a range of options to be applied successively or in different (but clearly specified) situations. In what cases would your proposal be effective? Why would your proposal work better than the current ad hoc approach?

[SlowwHand]

Sanctions, but they don't work either.
Look at North Korea.

[Bereta_Eder]

I agree that Bush must be disarmed and Blair hit on the behind a few times like the naughty little doggy he is.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
At present the world community does not appear to have any general policy for dealing with regimes whose conduct is abhorrent.

Please first define what "abhorrent conduct" entails.

[SlowwHand]

First thing you say, is what was asked to not be said.

[Ming]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I agree that Bush must be disarmed and Blair hit on the behind a few times like the naughty little doggy he is.

Sigh... paiktis22... Stay on topic, and stop your trolling.
I'm sure you can find enough other Anit - American threads to keep your happy. So just stop it in this thread...

[Bereta_Eder]

In short the body for such actions exists and is called the UN.

[KrazyHorse]

Depends.

Ignore them when they're relatively benign and better than other countries in their situation, sanction 'em when they really piss you off and have become an unacceptable nuisance, and invade 'em when they rise to the level of being a real, provable threat to everybody around them, or when you can show that a relatively painless invasion would result in a horrific action being stopped in its tracks (e.g. a Rwanda)

[Urban Ranger]

Clearly, embargos don't work. It is also against international law to actively seek a regime change in a sovereign country. So the only thing that works is to promote economic development. You don't see any well-to-do country going about screwing around.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Please first define what "abhorrent conduct" entails.

Based on the example countries aggression, apartheid, or genocide would do for a start. Your garden variety dictator might not yet be considered to have "abhorrent conduct", since there are still so many of the little buggers.

[Arrian]

I don't think sanctions work (they don't get at the people they're supposedly aimed at), so they're out.

I'm fond of consistency, so armed overthrow is out unless we're willing to invade a goodly portion of the world.

I guess trying to cut them off from the arms trade and refusing to give them money or anything else that might prop up the regime, even if it is temporarily expedient to do so. Aid to the country could be given via NGOs, provided the regime is reasonable enough to not place too many restrictions on the NGOs (NK is an example of a regime that isn't reasonable in that way).

-Arrian

[GePap]

In a perfect world, a sanctions regime aimed at the government (not total embargoes, but embargoes on military tech and the movement of the leaders of the regime..), followe dby UN military action to remove the government. I don't support any sort of Trusteeship, since that is inherently undemocractic..after all, we justify such an act in the name of bringing liberty to the people living under such a regime, so how then can we take command of them?

[Inverse Icarus]

first off i'd like to state that "abhorrent" is a highly subjective term. yes, i've read your posts here about how you're defining it, but i'm maintaining the fact that each society deems abhorrent differently.

so basically, this question is aking me, "what would you do if a regime was doing things that you don't want them to do?"

In my opinion, the UN is dead weight. It's an excellent idea, and a decent attempt at worldwide unity, but it doesn't work. it's a giant beurocracy that gets nothing done.

that's for another thread though. so scratch sanctions and any UN-related thing off the list.

do nothing? whats the point of that option exactly? i could see a use if i wasn't american, i suppose, but most of these regimes are as anti-american as flag-burning pie. if i was the leader of luxembourg or something, and me doing nothing wouldn't adversely effect me, then why bother? America stuck it's nose in international affairs for too long to just pull put now. yes, i say we shouldn't have even bothered. we tried our best to do right by other nations, and we left ourselves out there. we f*cked ourselves, and now every nation that exists under the blanket we helped to provide at one time or another gets all uppity when we try to defend ourselves. and don't say this isn't a defenseive action, please. there's no defense against terrorism. and don't say iraq != terrorism. iraq funds terrorism. thats debateable, but not now please

i believe the best way to deal with uppity regimes are coups. overthrow whatever despotic monster is there, and help to set up something better. don't go all out and tell them how to do it, don't appoint people to power, let it settle, and let the people hash out exactly what they want. if the people choose an uppity regime again, repeat. third time, destroy the people, they are no better than the regime.

when you finally get a regime you can live with, prop it up economically, without forcing our culture on them (very big for asian / islamic countries, imho). let them live the way they want to live, and don't give them a reason to hate you.

[General Ludd]

Instead of bombing or imposing sanctions and restrictions, which only magnifies the problems, why don't they force the country to except humanitarian aid under the supervision of a number of international organizations (and possibly the UN) to make sure that it goes toward improving the living standards and education of the people, and turning the country into a first world nation. This way, the people are no longer starving or being blown up, and the country will slowly change on its own, from the inside.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Osweld
Instead of bombing or imposing sanctions and restrictions, which only magnifies the problems, why don't they force the country to except humanitarian aid under the supervision of a number of international organizations (and possibly the UN) to make sure that it goes toward improving the living standards and education of the people, and turning the country into a first world nation. This way, the people are no longer starving or being blown up, and the country will slowly change on its own, from the inside.

Not that I dislike the idea, but I have to ask one thing: how, exactly, do you "force the country to accept humanitarian aid under supervision" if you rule out the use of force? Or do you simply mean "no supervision, no aid?" That makes sense, but leaves open the possibility of the regime tell you they don't need no steenking aid, and trying to sell missiles and nukes to raise cash.

-Arrian

[St Leo]

In my opinion, the UN is dead weight. It's an excellent idea, and a decent attempt at worldwide unity, but it doesn't work. it's a giant beurocracy that gets nothing done.

If it is, whose fault is that? Lester B. Pearson's UN was very much viable and active. Endless vetoes by the US and USSR are what shaped the UN into what it is now. Don't complain about a taste of your own medicine.

Paiktis:

[yavoon]

this question is massively oversimplified. its like saying what should you do w/ a girl who has a really nice rack. I mean wut if she's 300 lbs? u just need to know more than one thing=D

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Arrian


Not that I dislike the idea, but I have to ask one thing: how, exactly, do you "force the country to accept humanitarian aid under supervision" if you rule out the use of force? Or do you simply mean "no supervision, no aid?" That makes sense, but leaves open the possibility of the regime tell you they don't need no steenking aid, and trying to sell missiles and nukes to raise cash.

-Arrian

I didn't neccisarily rule out the use of force. I think that is a pretty damned reasonable sollution, and if someone where to refuse it there wouldn't be much support for them. If they refused, I think other ways of subtley changing and improving the country should be looked at (I admittedly have no suggestions at the moment) and possibly even a limited use of force - but deffinately not any massive bombing campaings or full-scale invasions. Maybe even assassination in certain circumstances, where it wouldn't just make the problems worse.


EDIT: To clarify, what I mean by limited force is puting pressure on the government or ruler of the country instead of outright blowing it to smithereans or invading - force the government to except the aid. No regime changes or pupper dictators.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by St Leo
In my opinion, the UN is dead weight. It's an excellent idea, and a decent attempt at worldwide unity, but it doesn't work. it's a giant beurocracy that gets nothing done.

If it is, whose fault is that? Lester B. Pearson's UN was very much viable and active. Endless vetoes by the US and USSR are what shaped the UN into what it is now. Don't complain about a taste of your own medicine.

i acknowledge america's role in the forming of today's UN, however i don't acknowledge the fact that it's "my own medicine" in any way shape or form. i'm very opposed to cold-war politics.

i honestly don't understand how america's saftey (debateble, yes) is in the hands of countries i never heard of (cameroon et al). it's appauling.

after the next world war i think the UN will be revamped

[Az]

You don't see any well-to-do country going about screwing around.

If the country is not governed by the will of the people in it, why not? The dictator will be stinking rich, whether the country is starving or prosperous as hell. He's not accountable to his people, who would stop him? I agree that the chance is somewhat lower, but still...

[yavoon]

actually uberkrux this is considered a very large break from cold war politics. since after WWII we set up the doctrine of containment. the idea of this much more proactive approach in the wake of 9-11 and the collapse of the soviet union.

is hardly in accordance w/ that.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by yavoon
actually uberkrux this is considered a very large break from cold war politics. since after WWII we set up the doctrine of containment. the idea of this much more proactive approach in the wake of 9-11 and the collapse of the soviet union.

is hardly in accordance w/ that.

i was responding to leo's post about how US-USSR politics shaped the UN as it stands today

[yavoon]

ahh k, then my comment was completely random.

[DaShi]

We should dump our garbage there until they shape up.