Egypt and Syria, for example...and...

just me

just me

Well-known member
MBTI
infj
Well, here we are months later after the rebellions across the globe that were so liked by so many people. Compare the irony in these two countries currently: Egypt and Syria. We have an ongoing trial against the leaders of Egypt facing corruption charges and the killing of hundreds of people. Egypt is far worse than it was before.

NATO has been trying to kill Gadaffi and his ruling party to no avail, and the rebels show no signs of being capable of running a country. The world sits on the seat of judge and jurors, but cannot come up with a better solution. Gadaffi was told to leave but he will not. Mubarak was told to leave and is now on trial. Assad was told to stop and he has not.

Meanwhile, the world allows Assad to slaughter hundreds of people in Syria. Congress goes on break. Turkey promised to step in but has not because of their supposed problems in the ruling military upper echelon. Sanctions are being placed on the rulers of Syria and some of their military leaders, but the killings continue. Does anyone yet see the failures in world governments in dealing with these situations on a consistent basis?

I will save my further comments til I have read a few from others, if there are any.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of children under the age of five years old have starved to death in and around Somalia.

Somalia....http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/04/501364/main20088015.shtml
 
Last edited:
As I most likely would, given such a bitter choice.....as people.

"Does anyone yet see the failures in world governments in dealing with these situations on a consistent basis?"
 
I would like to add that freedom to some may lead them down a path of rebellion, only to find themselves fighting different groups the rest of their time here. In that case, they may had been more free in the first place. Having a military for protection is a form of freedom.
 
It's a bit too complicated to look at in those terms. The uprisings are none of our business, essentially. The uprisings are simply the people of the country fighting for a better quality of life. When it comes to international relations, whether we help and how we help, it depends on a lot of things. Firstly, there has to be a border at which international countries say they will not intervene. There is good reason to intervene in a lot of cases and that is discussed according to guidelines the UN has attempted to set out - however, this is about situation rather than rules and the guidelines must be interpreted each time.

Basically, the guidelines are good ones. They say - it is our philanthropic duty to help those in need where we can and where our presence is welcome. However, it would be against the rules to have anything to do with regime change, because it would be wrong for the US or UK or any other country to have anything to do with domestic politics. It is only our duty and right to help victims. Here is where you meet a problem - how do you separate the two? So you have that as one complication.

The next complication is about diplomatic relations and trade. It is easier for the US to get involved in some fights due to their diplomatic relations with the countries. So Egypt needs the US and UK, so us putting our foot down influences the governments without the need for any military involvement. Gadaffis relations with the west are different. To be honest, he does need us and our trade, but he is not interested anymore, he is only interested in power. Once diplomacy has failed, the UN is then in a position to decide how the people should be helped without interfering in international politics.

When it comes to Syria, I haven't read the whole story but you've got a UN decision again. The UN could decide to use military intervention on the side of the protestors, but it's a big decision because they can't be seen to have any involvement in regime change (this is part of why Iraq was an illegal war by the way). As well as this, you have to remember that we did actually stop trade with some of these companies to move things along. This means less oil. Syria has shitloads of oil. The west needs to be careful about losing diplomatic ties with the middle east because if there is not enough oil, oil prices explode, and then people in their nations get poorer and their economy, while as fragile as it is, could collapse. And with a collapsed economy, nations can do nothing to help.

When it comes to Somalia, famines are difficult to manage. There is a lot of aid going to Somalia but there is never enough. How should famines be dealt with? We can only give money and food. We tend not to give to some governments because if they are corrupt they will use the money themselves instead of what it is meant to be used for, so the money and food will go to those on the ground, but how do you save an entire nation? Airlift them to Switzerland where food will grow?

It is important to have diplomatic relations and it is important for international governments not to get involved in regime change (because that is not democracy). We should be being more philanthropic - look at Rwanda as an example where the west has left thousands to die horribly and not lifted a finger. We are not doing the right thing,no, but at the same time, you have to recognise that this is so complex that sometimes there is no exact "right thing" - there are weighty pros and cons one way or another and it is a case of judgement and foresight. But like I say, I think we do do the wrong thing out of selfishness, which is wrong. So part of it - yes, wrong. But another part of it - I can see where they're having difficulty.
 
And history repeats itself. What else is new?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top