BF2S Forums Sovereignty and Human Rights Violations

This is why we have the UN and in most cases it actually works as intended ... and not to forget the watchdogs from an unlimited number of organizations that speaks up when nobody else does ...

There are two kinds of HR violations: those that occur in oil producing countries or countries deemed strategically important and those that occur in countries we* don't care about or ones that we cannot touch.



^{* by "we" I'm referring to countries strong enough, the foreign policy of which may have a critical effect on other nations (US, Russia, China etc)}

Last edited by oug (2008-02-28 09:23:20)

FEOS wrote:

I picked the third option. Should HR abuses necessarily result in military intervention? No.
Should they (at a minimum) result in some kind of economic/political ramifications for the country? Yes.

As to oug's statement, your argument isn't really about HR violations, it's about national interests. And every nation's interests are different. And, more importantly, critical for that nation (otherwise, they wouldn't be national interests). Countries act in varying ways to protect their interests...access to oil being one of those key national interests for many countries of the world.

So one has to ask: is access to energy sources more important to my country than someone else violating their peoples' human rights? The answer is invariably...YES. As such, you put one unpleasant trait aside to ensure a more important national interest is protected.

I would have picked the third option too, only I can't, because like you said every nation's actions are based on their own interests and not on the actual HR violations. The latter are merely a pretext. An excuse. So if sanctions are to be imposed to Iran, then the same should apply for Turkey. Otherwise I can't support either.

This is a very difficult question to answer, and a great topic.

It's hard to simply say you should invalidate some country's sovereignty if they're grossly abusing their citizens' human rights.  The approach of the United States has been both good and bad.  I think a case by case approach is the only answer since you can't broadly decide in advance who to interfere with and who not to.

For example, the various African nations plagued with machete violence (and worse) over religious, occupational, or other such reasoning...  Where and HOW do you contribute to ending?  Do you attack the bad guys?  Who is really bad and who isn't?  I'm under the impression that the Tutsi's started the Rwanda attacks, but then got overtaken, and slaughtered well above and beyond reasonable warfare by the Hutus (or vice versa).  I don't think Either side was right, but because one side was suceeding in their slaughter, they were deemed the bad guy.  Kosovo...the ethnic albanians were obviously picking the wrong fight, and they got slaughtered...we bombed the hell out of Serbs and liberated the muslims in Kosovo...now we're seeing them abuse that help... should we have interfered?  Very tough question..I can't answer.

Surely international outrage, possibly sanctions once truly identifying who is right and wrong, are some solutions...but military might?  It seems there isn't enough reasoning going on..no diplomacy...just cowboy diplomacy.

Kmarion wrote:

If the violations are extreme I feel intervention is necessary. The mass slaughtering of innocents is unacceptable as a species. However, taking out a foreign government to allow women the right to drive motor vehicles is also unacceptable. Eventually the people will demand more.

I agree, but "who" is considered worthy, unbiased, without alterior motives, neutral, etc..to be the one to intervene..to mediate?  The US usually intervenes in countries where they care little about the people and their causes, but for their own greedy purposes.  If we truly cared, and had the policy to intervene to liberate such wrong doing, the gulags in northern North Korea would be liberated, No countries in Africa would be at war, saudi Arabia would have had it's regime change long ago, etc...  Durfur wouldn't have lasted a week.  In Egypt, they mutilate women so they can't have pleasure...but we need Egypt strategically (if at least for a CIA rendition location with their government).

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-02-28 09:31:09)

coke wrote:

Pretty much sums up my views on the subject...

lol, seen that one before.  be nice if he described "sheet metal" next.

"...uh, you see it's like this, ..it's a sheet...that's metal...in what looks like a sheet..but not like the sheet on the bed...it's metal idiot!"

In principle, human rights should be a concern for every member of our species.

In reality, economics trump human rights and always will.

So...  for the most part, fuck 'em.   We should simply intervene whenever it makes good business sense, but other than that...   oh well.

The problem with our current foreign policy is that the only business interests we're currently preserving are making sure that contractors make money hand over fist at taxpayers' expense.

That's not exactly a valid way of defending trade interests IMHO.

I voted other

Rights fall into two categories
1. fundamental, inalienable or mandatory or some other similar word and
2. necessary

the first are rights that should never be violated such as the right to llife and liberty, free speech, particapation in the politcal process etc. any country violating these should be punished and individual functionairies within governments should be jailed for vioaltions

the second are necessaries of life, such as food, water, medical care, since these rights are largely budgetary matters the wealth of the country should be considered. A poor country cannot be expected to provide these rights to its citizens to the same level as would be expected in a rich country and therefore there should be no international expectation or punishment for failure to provide these rights.

HOWEVER, in a rich country like the United States that can afford to provide universal healthcare and chooses not to is violating the rights of its citizens. This is a violation of rights and the US should be punished.... making a market out of sickness so a few corporations can profit is a gross violation of rights. as would premitting children to live in poverty and suffer from starvation. These rich governments have the obligation to insulate their citizens from the negative effects of the market and failure to do so is a violation of human rights.

Other:

Who gives us these 'rights' in the first place?
Who gives us the right to call this or that plot of land 'ours'?


When it comes down to it, all 'rights' are totally artificial.


Having said that, I do think all humans should be afforded equal rights, irrespective of where they live.

Rights are defined by society and where the rights impact budgetary concerns then those rights are affected by the wealth of the country and you have to ask whether the country can afford those rights.

Every person has the right to expect their government to insulate them from the negative effects of the market. the market is for corporations not for people. and in the case of the right to health, medical care is a necessity and it is a right - not a mere benefit. It is criminal from a rich country to deny its citizens universal healthcare and food and water and shelter. all those things are necessary to sustain human life and withholding them for the sake of creating a false market so that corporations can profit is a breach of fundamental human rights.

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Rights are defined by society and where the rights impact budgetary concerns then those rights are affected by the wealth of the country and you have to ask whether the country can afford those rights.

Every person has the right to expect their government to insulate them from the negative effects of the market. the market is for corporations not for people. and in the case of the right to health, medical care is a necessity and it is a right - not a mere benefit. It is criminal from a rich country to deny its citizens universal healthcare and food and water and shelter. all those things are necessary to sustain human life and withholding them for the sake of creating a false market so that corporations can profit is a breach of fundamental human rights.

That's an interesting concept.  In principle, I agree with you.  This would make a lot of First World nations human rights offenders.

Still, I don't think it's fair to hold wealthy nations to a higher standard.  There are plenty of poorer nations (like Saudi Arabia) that have plenty of money at the top, but they still keep their people in poverty.  I would consider countries like Saudi Arabia, Burma, North Korea, Sudan, and China to be some of the biggest human rights offenders in the world, but in these cases, I am using the common definition of human rights that most people seem to recognize.

However, it would be nice if more people in power held your view on this.  If they did, America would have far less wealth disparity and a working socialized healthcare system.

Rarely do I find myself agreeing with two consecutive posts completely.

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

There are two kinds of HR violations: those that occur in oil producing countries or countries deemed strategically important and those that occur in countries we* don't care about or ones that we cannot touch.



^{* by "we" I'm referring to countries strong enough that the foreign policy of which may have a critical effect on other nations (US, Russia, China etc)}

I picked the third option. Should HR abuses necessarily result in military intervention? No.
Should they (at a minimum) result in some kind of economic/political ramifications for the country? Yes.

As to oug's statement, your argument isn't really about HR violations, it's about national interests. And every nation's interests are different. And, more importantly, critical for that nation (otherwise, they wouldn't be national interests). Countries act in varying ways to protect their interests...access to oil being one of those key national interests for many countries of the world.

So one has to ask: is access to energy sources more important to my country than someone else violating their peoples' human rights? The answer is invariably...YES. As such, you put one unpleasant trait aside to ensure a more important national interest is protected.

I agree totally.