The general (UN Security Council) rule of thumb is the international community should only act when a government's bad actions end up being a threat to neighbouring nations (this was the entire claim behind WMD in Iraq).
I have to wonder about this policy. Will there be actions against Russia, do you think, for the ongoing combats in Georgia? What about the Sudan?
I wonder if the UN isn't hamstrung by it's own bureaucracy (which is necessitated by the interaction of so many nations and cultures, granted). I've read a few interpretations of law that say that Iraq wasn't even, by UN standards, a "sovereign nation" when the US/Coalition force invaded it this latest time, which takes a lot of the wind out of a lot of anti-war sails, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm one of few people who will admit to a [somewhat reluctant, in this case] pro-war stance)
In general however a dictatorial government is best overthrown by the people who have lived under it.
In this case, the ones who are starved, both of food and of information? The lifestyles of the North Koreans constitute an atrocity, a gross act of inhumanity by a shrewd, callous, morally bankrupt government. So long as we permit the deliberate starvation and illiteracy and totalitarian rule of the North Koreans, what justification or consistency do we have with regards to interactions anywhere else?
Perhaps the standard of "You're not harming anyone else, so do your own thing" is appropriate for an individual - "Stockpile weapons? Sure! Do drugs? Fine. Start shooting your neighbors? Police get called." - but is it really appropriate when we're talking about entire human lifetimes lived in abject misery, eating grass and caged like animals from the rest of the world? Especially in a time of unprecedented travel, freedom, and enlightenment through information sharing?
When does the standard change? When do we stop allowing one person, or small groups of people, to destroy the lives of others for nothing more than power's sake?
no subject
I have to wonder about this policy. Will there be actions against Russia, do you think, for the ongoing combats in Georgia? What about the Sudan?
I wonder if the UN isn't hamstrung by it's own bureaucracy (which is necessitated by the interaction of so many nations and cultures, granted). I've read a few interpretations of law that say that Iraq wasn't even, by UN standards, a "sovereign nation" when the US/Coalition force invaded it this latest time, which takes a lot of the wind out of a lot of anti-war sails, in my opinion. (Then again, I'm one of few people who will admit to a [somewhat reluctant, in this case] pro-war stance)
In general however a dictatorial government is best overthrown by the people who have lived under it.
In this case, the ones who are starved, both of food and of information? The lifestyles of the North Koreans constitute an atrocity, a gross act of inhumanity by a shrewd, callous, morally bankrupt government. So long as we permit the deliberate starvation and illiteracy and totalitarian rule of the North Koreans, what justification or consistency do we have with regards to interactions anywhere else?
Perhaps the standard of "You're not harming anyone else, so do your own thing" is appropriate for an individual - "Stockpile weapons? Sure! Do drugs? Fine. Start shooting your neighbors? Police get called." - but is it really appropriate when we're talking about entire human lifetimes lived in abject misery, eating grass and caged like animals from the rest of the world? Especially in a time of unprecedented travel, freedom, and enlightenment through information sharing?
When does the standard change? When do we stop allowing one person, or small groups of people, to destroy the lives of others for nothing more than power's sake?