|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-11 21:33:41
The Prime Minister comments on régime change.
I caught a news spot with the PM talking about joining up with Briton to replace a regime in so 3rd world country and how that would be wrong.
A question that came to my mind was," Why does the dictator of said 3rd world country get a different set of laws to follow then Canadian citizens?"
If said dictator was in Canada he would be put in prison for crimes. If up holding law is what Canada is about, then shouldn’t that dictator be held accountable to Canadian standards? Even if it means the threat of regime change.
My concern is that it would lead to WWIII if we try to remove every dictator. Is this fare to say?
Should democracies band together to remove dictatorships everywhere? Or can we as debaters and intelligent fellows be able to eventually overcome dictators through other means?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-12 14:53:11
p.s : I'm also an engineer btw :)
Canada's position is the right one, and i admire Chretien for staying the course he did.
The question i have to you, is who can say our laws are right, especially if we impose them on people who have different customs?? Is there any absolute thruth in saying we are right, and others are wrong? One action from someone's point of view can be good, while another person can view this action as evil.
It is up to the people of a particular culture and country to decide their faith - we have no right to decide what is right for them. Canada has no right to say to the US, for example, ban all weapons, since its bad, if they think its good. Canada has no right to say to a government, you should govern your country this way and that way.
Of course, the basics are an absolute, mass murder, mass rape, mass deportation are things which are universally recognized by everyone, its a basic value of all cultures of this world, and Canada should be a strong champion of intervention through the UN in this case. But thats it.
(I think your topic is broader than Iraq here - since the war in Iraq is NOT for liberating the people of Iraq - that was only secondary). Intervention in Iraq should have been done in 1988.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-14 15:17:21
Of course, if we use the excuse "its up to them", then we run the risk of ignoring situations where citizens of a country would like us to intervene - out of fellowship - and get to sit back on the couch and watch their misery on TV.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-15 23:39:09
Codco, I would like to add the reverse too; The USA has no right to tell Canada how they should vote. We are both Free countries and should act as such. Voting is sacred, others can give their views but they do not demand or strongly suggest which way you should vote. That goes for people or countries. (I told you so, after will suffice)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 00:25:41
..."The question i have to you, is who can say our laws are right"....
I'll answer your question with a question. :) The question I have to you is, "Do we know what is wrong?"
If we know what is wrong and attempt to correct it, then what we are we left with?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 02:28:55
Correcting it even if violates other laws which are right? Violating a law to enforce another law is not a solution...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 13:02:33
Not exactly what I am thinking codc01. I know were you are coming from. That is Canadian law should not supersede any other foreign countries people's laws. I agree.
The direction I am heading is that democracies should be able to agree on a core set of laws. (Forgive me if these already exist at the U.N. level, if they do, then these laws are not enforced).
For example;
No penalty of death speaking out against a government.
No penalty of death for publishing a free press.
No penalty of death for illegally leaving a country.
Would this be too cumbersome? Is it practical? What do you think?
On the other hand non-democracies would probably just kill people out of public sight more often if such a system existed.
Which gets back to my original point, that a dictatorship by its nature can not have just laws of the people, or it wouldn't be a dictatorship. So why should we support/uphold the phony laws of a dictator?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 13:03:53
Not exactly what I am thinking codc01. I know were you are coming from. That is Canadian law should not supersede any other foreign countries people's laws. I agree.
The direction I am heading is that democracies should be able to agree on a core set of laws. (Forgive me if these already exist at the U.N. level, if they do, then these laws are not enforced).
For example;
No penalty of death speaking out against a government.
No penalty of death for publishing a free press.
No penalty of death for illegally leaving a country.
Would this be too cumbersome? Is it practical? What do you think?
On the other hand non-democracies would probably just kill people out of public sight more often if such a system existed.
Which gets back to my original point, that a dictatorship by its nature can not have just laws of the people, or it wouldn’t be a dictatorship. So why should we support/uphold the phony laws of a dictator?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 14:03:25
Sorry to disappoint you, but these laws are the basic rights of the UN Human rights charter, but you should remove the word 'death'... The charter clearly states that people are free to exercice these rights...
p.s : Is there a country where you get the death penalty for leaving that country (without comitting a crime of course...)?
I understand your point of view, but i think we only differ on the priorities given to international law... The most important thing about international law currently is that a state is sovereign, whatever happens within its borders. This supercedes everything, even the Human Rights charter - i would not reverse this, as there would always be intervention in the world. There should be a compromise, and a point where the UN says - ok, enough violations of basic rights, we're goig in...
We also have different opinion regarding the scope of intervention, free pess, or a way of thinking is not enough of a reason to intervene...
Just a question, if the USSR was not powerful during the Cold War, you are saying we should have acted against that country?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 15:05:50
Ok, I fully understand you. I think you characterized it well.
..."Just a question, if the USSR was not powerful during the Cold War, you are saying we should have acted against that country?"...
If the USSR was not powerful, then the time to act would have been just after WWII and when Poland was up for grabs. I think we could have democratized a number of Eastern European countries, Poland would certainly have been a candidate early on no?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 15:34:53
I have no idea actually about Poland - but Stalin was a horrible dictator i would have understood intervention, but i still have doubts, because the USSR did help in ending WWII... So actually i can say i have no opinion in Stalin's era (as for after Stalin's era, I'd say no, i would not favour intervention)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 16:08:19
..."p.s : Is there a country where you get the death penalty for leaving that country (without comitting a crime of course...)?"....
Common Citizens of North Korea can be put to death for leaving. (It is not publicized to the Media, they just go missing as I understand it)
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-17 18:57:10
I knew that regime was crazy but not that much, but what you are saying is quite probable...pfft.. what can else i say...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-17 21:10:39
Unfortunately, there really isn't much we can do about it. That whole country is an obscurity it seems, other then a few minor accounts that get out.
Let’s hope Kim Il’s recent willingness to negotiate can be leveraged. Apparently after seeing Saddam get tossed Kim Il’s is reconsidering his options.
On a side note, N. Korea seems more like a cult then a typical régime, but I could be way off on that. <shrugs>
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-17 07:32:04
The Americans should right their own wrongs first before they can pass judgement on others. I am referring to the undisputed USA use of cluster bombs used in both attacks on Iraq. The article I address your attention to have concerns voiced by: human rights watch, UNICEF, and the Red Cross
http://www.msnbc.com/news/897522.asp
"Cluster bombs likely to leave deadly legacy"
The Americans have, also, refused to sign on to banning landmines which kills and maims civillians and animals for years to come.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 16:00:04
Canadian laws are for Canadians. We do not rule the world. We or even the UN or US cannot remove every dictator. Removal of a dictator does not mean the country will not be again taken over be another more repressive dictatorship. The countries people are responsible to lead a revolt against these leaders. Help can be provided but I believe it is necessary for the people to be ready and prepared to lead the revolt. Only dictatorships that practice genocide or other severe human rights violations or those that threaten other countries can be removed by foreign interests.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kcowan
Date: 2003-04-17 13:14:49
Every society develops a set of rules or a code of acceptable conduct. Anyone wishing to participate effectively in such a society must adapt to their rules. This applies especially to conducting business in other countries.
Canadians have been especially good at this because we observe and respect the local rules. We get in trouble when we are not mindful of the underlying rules. In other words, we adapt to their rules. The same in true with interventions on the political level. If anyone is out-of-touch with the local rules, eventually there will be insurrections of some type.
The more diverse the culture, the more difficult it is to govern effectively. I would suggest that it takes a Muslim to effectively run a Muslim country. Of course, there are other attributes, but the long term stability will depend on the degree of synchronicity and simpatico of the rulers with their people...Keith
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
