![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewduckerYou 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-10 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-10 05:38 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-10 07:41 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-10 08:39 am (UTC)I do choose amongst the options. I prefer to concentrate on the ones I have control over.