Comments on: Burma; The Right To Protect

By: Jim Fryar

Jim Fryar — Fri, 23 May 2008 08:10:50 +0000

Nicholas; I noticed this a while ago, who says he doesn’t listen.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:11:44 +0000

McCain is stealing one of my ideas! Jim might back me up on this- I proposed a ‘United Democracies’ about a year ago, with an automatic free-trade zone between allied democracies. Keep talking, fellow libbers- we’re reaching more people than we knew!

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:42:35 +0000

Mark – I’d settle for a league of democracies. A league of “liberal” democracies would be unlikely to have many members.

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Thu, 22 May 2008 03:45:59 +0000

Graeme

But we have to understand these peoples limitations and work around them. And not ignore their strong points.

indeed.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:24:32 +0000

If we’re talking about assassinations, what are the criteria? Can we go for anyone who wants high office (i.e. more power)? Who’ll take Rudd, and how much would a Prime Meddler cost anyhow?

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 22 May 2008 01:18:25 +0000

I don’t see much wrong with trials in absentia if done correctly.

I don’t see much wrong with multilateralism (and the Korean War was a proud example of how the UN should work)except that the mechanism for it is broken.

Quite frankly I like Mc Cain’s idea about a new league of liberal democracies. After all, at least it is moral suasion.

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:02:57 +0000

leaning on the apartheid regime of S Africa worked and China’s welcoming of foreign aid during its earthquake disaster is definitely down to worldwide condemnation of the way it handled the Tibetan uprising. moral suasion can work.

i dont see much wrong with targeted assassinations.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:36:51 +0000

Pommy,

What can you offer ASEAN? (What can you offer that crazy Mbeki?)

As you don’t want to invade, I take back 16 and I’m no longer confused, just curious.

I’m really seeing two (old fashioned) solutions to these regimes.

1. A right to invoke old military operating rules like granting letters of marque and reprisal, along with targeted assassination to enforce anti-terrorism and the right to protect. Repeated outcomes would lead to deterrence. At worst, it is target practice at some unsavoury characters.

2. We should repeal anti mercernary laws. What is wrong if a career soldier takes a huge fee to depose of Mugabe and invite in a multinational and native pro democracy transitionary Government (this being part of the “product” that the solider offers expatriates, Mugabe haters worldwide and anti Governemnt forces).

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:29:15 +0000

“Perhaps the best solution is the threat but not the act of intervention. Perhaps this is why the junta have finally relented.”

If that’s true I don’t see the point of much of your article, the aid can flow in and the rest of your post is more about invading countries on the basis that they violate human rights.

Please draw up a list of these, prioritise them and tell us how far down the list we would get without suffering a loss of living standards.

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:29:09 +0000

Do you want to give material support (with good intentions) to a Government you are simeltaneously urging be deposed of for human rights abuses?

that is without doubt the best argument against aid.

corruption is often associated with the distribution of aid (as it is with anything govts touch), but it is not in of itself a corrupt act.

Mark – i’m not for one moment suggesting invasion. that would be a catastrophic outcome. in this case, quiet diplomacy of getting ASEAN nations to apply pressure to the Burmese generals seems to be the only solution.