War! What is it good for? Well, some things, when you get right down to it. I mean, take WW2 ....

[andrewducker]

You know what I'd like to see?

I'd like to see a set of criteria for deciding whether a country is considered a problem. Whether it's a set of human rights abuses they commit, ownership of certain proscribed devices, acts of war, being ruled by someone with a dodgy moustache. Whatever. I want to see a statement of intent consisting of "We hereby declare that we consider countries that fulfil the following to be dangerous and will do whatever it takes to neutralise that threat."

I then want to see a list of all countries in the world that fulfil those criteria, complete with breakdowns of why and how.

And I'd like to see some dedicated research into what makes a country change from being 'antisocial' to being 'a happy friendly country full of smiling people that we like'. Some actual social science looking at how we changed. Because goddamimit, 100 years ago we were all just as bad as they are now.

And then I'll be happy to start sorting things out, however the study shows is the best way (or multitude of ways).

Of course, should someone be gassing their population before then, by all means perform a quick humanitarian excercise to prevent it. Rwanda, the Balkans, the Kurds, etc. all needed fairly instant help. Sometimes they got it, sometimes they didn't.

But for the long term, I'd like to see some nice ground rules laid down.

Comments

[spaj.livejournal.com]

Nice thought. You should tell someone about it. :)

Adam

[andrewducker]

Just sent it to The Guardian and the Herald. You never know.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

I'd like it to be made binding where people agreed "If we meet these criteria you can intervene"

Certainly I dont think a certain individual should be able to quickly follow accusing their enemy of "defying the international community" with a claim that if the Internation Community votes against a hostile invasion they will "go it alone"

[heron61.livejournal.com]

No kidding, at this point it seems clear that the US meets almost any reasonable set of criteria for bding a problem.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Excellent idea, but only if war is not the only solution. Wars to overthrow a government are messy and far more violent than simply conflicts about borders, leaders (especially problematic ones) tend to do rather extreme things when fighting for either their lives or their power. For me, the most moral solution is always one that minimizes death and suffering. Other less destructive options like bribery & assassination can work equally well and don't end up with piles of dead people. A distinction between a problematic country and a problematic government or leader is a very useful one to make and one that is too often forgotten.

A good case in point is North Korea - the leader is an insane nutcase, that government has has concentration camps and commits many atrocities on its populace, and any attempt to invade would result in the near complete destruction of Seoul South Korea, and the likely use of nukes on invaders, even if they were in North Korea.

[andrewducker]

And I'd like to see some dedicated research into what makes a country change from being 'antisocial' to being 'a happy friendly country full of smiling people that we like'.

That's what that was about. Sorry, should have been clearer.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

There are (at least) two levels to that:

1) Cultural changes to make a nation less xenophobic and aggressive. In the medium to long-term prosperity and trade are extremely helpful way to accomplish this task - Japan and Ireland are excellent recent examples and indicate that embargoes are likely exceedingly counterproductive. Reality bears out that assumption, embargoes most definitely seem to do no good at all.

2) How transform a brutal and tyrannical government into a more agreeable one. I many nations, this is a completely separate question from anything relating to culture, since many leaders have little popular support - fear & apathy work as well as love for keeping someone in power. Aggressive solutions might work, especially for unpopular leaders - if everyone cheers the assassins, then likely then next government will be better. However, non-aggressive solutions are likely to produce considerably less volatile results.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

ROTFL

dear oh dear Andrew, in some ways you really don't change.

(shuffles off giggling in a manic, yet cynical way)

[andrewducker]

Well, in many ways that's exactly what the UN declaration of human rights and the international court were designed for. So the basic pieces are there, they just aren't as forthright as they could be.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Mm-hm, and exactly how effective are they?

Clarifying and detailing the rules will do absolutely nothing to make governments abide by them if they really don't want to. It will also do nothing to make the other countries/goverments who are meant to gang up on the miscreant(s) do so, or prevent them from cutting deals (especially if the 'rogue' power is militarily/economically strong).

Why do you spend so much time thinking about these things? It's very like the rules of the playground, just writ large but with even less chance of effecting any change. I gave up a long time ago. Things I don't like but which I am powerless to change are just pointlessly depressing.

[andrewducker]

Clarifying and detailing the rules will do absolutely nothing to make governments abide by them if they really don't want to.

And I'm sure people said the same when the various legal systems started coming into being. And in some ways they were right, but I'd still rather live in a world with laws than one without.

Why do you spend so much time thinking about these things?

I don't choose what to think about, you know. I just think.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

:-)

I do choose amongst the options. I prefer to concentrate on the ones I have control over.