LibriumArcana.Games

A moral question. Today the dictatiors that rule various chunks of land on this planet enjoy the full rights and protection of law, while they themselves murder, rape and torture the people trapped with them in that set of borders. In many cases they can and do visit other nations in luxury treated with full respect as worthwhile heads of state, while allowing childern to strave to death.

Indeed if I were to suggest say... arresting Kimmy if he visited Japan, I would be considered a manic. Or if I suggested arresting a certain African dictatior on one of his visits to other nations, my suggestion would be recieved with howls.

So while decrying the idea of people being treated like common cattle, we treat the very criminals who do so with more respect and ceremony than often give our own heads of state. Instead of treating them like the crooks writ large we all know them to be.

Is there any moral reason or defense for this?

Lets break this puppy down into a few different pieces.

1) Why? At the end of WWII the two big evils everyone agreed upon were snatching someone else's country and terrible human rights abuses like genocide. Of course, the latter was being done by Uncle Joe and crew and that if the provisions were too strong they weren't going to sign on and then the UN would die in its crib. So the cardinal sin is aggression against another country, which still happens anyway. And while genocide is also a great sin, its a lot of effort to go through and stop, especially if it happens in a part of the world no one cares about. Those are the practical reasons why grotesque human rights abuses are tolerated. It requires a lot of effort to stop and it occurs in an international system where invasion is the worst sin.

2) Why not grab Kimmy? The problem here is that we're violating the principle of diplomatic immunity and thats going to make international relations more difficult for a long time. Is it worth it? So far the answer from most governments has been no.

3) Morality? Well, that's the rub. The reasons for the current state of affairs is simple pragmatism. Its clear that the system to prevent atrocity has failed. Even the UN admits this. So, from a moral standpoint, there seems to be a wide concensus that more must be done about these skum bags.

At current, I see no reason why these people should be treated in the way they are. These people are butchers of thier fellow man, despots and warmongers.

Unfortunatly, instead of giving the the treatment they deserve, that being a short drop with a quick stop, we treat them as honored guests. Only reason I can see for this, is to help "assauage" them from thier course of actions...and make them better people.

Of course, that doesn't happen.

Should dictators have sovereignty? It's not dictators but recognised states and heads of state that enjoy sovereignty. Speaking in terms of theory: what's good for them is good for you as well. If you undermine their sovereignty then you have no guarantee nobody else won't undermine yours. This is also an old practice that's been around for centuries, codified at least by the Treaty of Westphalia I believe, though common practice before that.

If you got rid of this concept of sovereignty then things like diplomacy becomes a hundred times more difficult. Particularly when you start saying certain types of Heads of State are accepted but other's aren't.

My question lies not with the difficulity but with the morality.

frigidmagi wrote:My question lies not with the difficulity but with the morality.

OK. To that I don't know the answer.

Liberals - in international relations - tend to think that if everyone was democratic and liberal things would be great. That's like saying "Dude, wouldn't it be cool if there were, like, no criminals?" "There wouldn't be any crime! Shit dude, that's deep!" Of course Neoconservatives take this to a ridiculous extreme with the whole "Grr... Democratise! Democratise! DEM-OC-RA-TISE!" thing. (sorry, I just saw Doctor Who)

I believe that they should be arrested and punished or if at the LEAST stop treating them like fucking god-like royalty when they visit.... some are just sick twisted fucks (I have seen multipe murder prisiners say they go to far) that have money.

But yes, I have to admit it is hard to put a decent person into power in these such places, and more importantly KEEP them there. With the amount of zelot backing the current leaders have there is no way to keep a carbon copy of the previous head from being ploped in after they eliminate the 1 decent person, for all persons in that country, that could be found to run the damn thing.

It is in human nature to reach at power at all costs and to destroy everything around them and them selves. Until we can do away with that, we just have to find a workable plan, even if it sucks monkey nuts.

The problem is that while these people are scum and deserve a prolonged and painful death, a number of them are scum in a position to harm the world economy.
NK's Kimmy for example while being totally unable to militarily affect the rest of the world can throw quite the wrench in the workings of the world markets by leveling Seoul. He's not going to survive doing so and neither is North Korea but why provoke it when the only ones suffering under him are North Koreans?
People might sympathise with the opressed when it costs them nothing but most of us prefer being fed clothed warm and dry over suffering but seeing justice done. And a lot of those peoples are voters.
Then there's the problem TVI mentioned-making sure that someone decent is not only put but actually STAYS in charge. I mean it didn't work for the US or Germany and both are more or less stable democracies, how do you expect it to work for a former tyrant state?

Societies have no rights, Governments have no rights. Only people have rights. If a society or a government causes injury to the rights of people, they should be corrected. Peacefully, if possible, but by force if necessary. Obviously, this isn't entirely reasonable in the real world, but it could be closer to a possibility if the UN had some sort of standard of entrance, or at least tiers of membership - like if you've committed human rights violations, you can't sit on the fucking human rights council until you've cleaned up your act and work towards ending such acts elsewhere.

Does diplomacy get hurt if you tell a banana republic dictator that he's a two-bit murderous shithead? Sure, but think about it this way - everyone bitches and moans when the US makes any sort of unilateral move, be it military or otherwise. It's hurt diplomacy - why shouldn't staging a military coup to gain control, or taking money from aid efforts to line your own damn pockets?

Of course, I'm of the opinion that assassination is a valid move when dealing with dictators or other such assholes.

Hotfoot wrote:Societies have no rights, Governments have no rights. Only people have rights. If a society or a government causes injury to the rights of people, they should be corrected. Peacefully, if possible, but by force if necessary. Obviously, this isn't entirely reasonable in the real world, but it could be closer to a possibility if the UN had some sort of standard of entrance, or at least tiers of membership - like if you've committed human rights violations, you can't sit on the fucking human rights council until you've cleaned up your act and work towards ending such acts elsewhere.

Does diplomacy get hurt if you tell a banana republic dictator that he's a two-bit murderous shithead? Sure, but think about it this way - everyone bitches and moans when the US makes any sort of unilateral move, be it military or otherwise. It's hurt diplomacy - why shouldn't staging a military coup to gain control, or taking money from aid efforts to line your own damn pockets?

Of course, I'm of the opinion that assassination is a valid move when dealing with dictators or other such assholes.

This sums up my thoughts exactly.

Look at it this way. Diplomacy only works if it can be reasonably expected that the two parties entering into the agreement will keep both their ends. Tinpot dictators do not do this anyway. To use an example, Kimmy has entered into an agreement in which he stops processing nuclear fuel in exchange for FOOD FOR HIS PEOPLE IIRC. Did he hold up his end? Fuck no. He manufactures nuclear weapons and gives the food to his army, which is nice and well fed while the civilians are EATING THEIR CHILDREN. Then, when he leaves his country, he is treated with the same respect we give to the Queen of Fucking Engliand. No.

Diplomacy was already hurt when he didnt hold up his end of the damn bargain to not make nukes with which to threaten his neighbors and sell to other third world shitholes

Diplomacy gets hurt when corrupt beurocrats use the Oil for food program to line their fucking pockets. Diplomacy gets hurt when a country like SUDAN (which orders the rape of Political dissidents IIRC)takes America's seat in the Human Rights COmmission.

Fuck sovereignty. Only governments which have the voluntary consent of their people to rule, and which protect the rights of their people and provide for them, instead of being a ravenous Kleptocray, can call itself Sovereign and worthy of respect. This is because unlike people, governments are not created equal. They must have the consent of their populace, and treat them like..human beings, Otherwise, they are just powerful robber-barons with delusions of grandeur, worthy only of death like any other petty tyrant.

Not gonna happen in the real world anytime soon, CT.

Batman wrote:Not gonna happen in the real world anytime soon, CT.

WHich is why this world fills me with loathing sometimes

There's a reason I maintain I'm a comic book character.