https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/13/belarus-100000-join-rally-against-lukashenko-on-eve-of-putin-showdown
100 thousand people protested against the Belarusian president, Lukashenko, who has a 26 year history of dictatorial behavior. This includes using deadly force to quell protesters. In the most recent election, a few of his political opponents have been jailed, and one his opponents has fled the country fearing she will also be imprisoned.
The backlash has gotten so bad, Lukashenko enlisted the help of Putin (a dictator himself), who Lukashenko and Belarus have resisted for years, due to Putin wanting to merge Belarus into Russia.
The obvious comparisons to the U.S. aside, you'd think the UN, NATO or the EU would have a system in place to dispose of dictators. Gaddafi was removed, but part of the reason (out of many) was due to terrorist actions abroad...yes, more importantly was also Libya's value to the west and their oil fields. But the point is the a dictator was removed through the efforts of NATO and the UN.
So what should be done about dictators like Lukashenko? Sanctions alone won't work, especially with Russia having a seat on the UN Security Council; but what about in general? Should the UN have a system in place to dispose of dictators?
Obviously, criteria defining dictatorial rule will have to be implemented. But even then, having a system to remove dictators can and will be used for political reasons rather than ethical ones. It's unavoidable, especially given the power that the US, China, Russia and UK have in the UN.
Still...we've seen that sanctions and even embargoes don't work in removing dictators. Rarely do uprisings from within the country succeed; if they do, it's usually after decades of dictatorial rule.
Thoughts?
@vivify saidRussia likes dictators and is too powerful to ignore.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/13/belarus-100000-join-rally-against-lukashenko-on-eve-of-putin-showdown
100 thousand people protested against the Belarusian president, Lukashenko, who has a 26 year history of dictatorial behavior. This includes using deadly force to quell protesters. In the most recent election, a few of his political opponents have been jaile ...[text shortened]... thin the country succeed; if they do, it's usually after decades of dictatorial rule.
Thoughts?
@vivify saidHow they are governed is a matter for the Belarussians. Dictatorships do not necessarily outlast the dictator, for example Spain after Franco. The international community's concern should be that they remain contained, but that's the same for democracies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/13/belarus-100000-join-rally-against-lukashenko-on-eve-of-putin-showdown
100 thousand people protested against the Belarusian president, Lukashenko, who has a 26 year history of dictatorial behavior. This includes using deadly force to quell protesters. In the most recent election, a few of his political opponents have been jaile ...[text shortened]... thin the country succeed; if they do, it's usually after decades of dictatorial rule.
Thoughts?
It's not clear that the toppling of Gadaffi has produced a better outcome than waiting for him to die of more-or-less natural causes and letting them move to democracy themselves.
The UN can only really be involved if there's a civil war and to prevent and try War Crimes. Russia would want to lead any international effort, possibly with an eye to annexation and so I doubt that the West could do much on practical grounds whatever standards of government we might wish were enforcable by the United Nations.
@deepthought saidThat's because the West gave no thought what to do after toppling Gadaffi. If the UN had a thought-out system for removing dictators, the resulting mess wouldn't have happened.
It's not clear that the toppling of Gadaffi has produced a better outcome than waiting for him to die of more-or-less natural causes and letting them move to democracy themselves.
@vivify saidThe UN had a though out system that said don't remove the dictator actually. The USA wasn't and isn't too concerned with what the UN has to say.
That's because the West gave no thought what to do after toppling Gadaffi. If the UN had a thought-out system for removing dictators, the resulting mess wouldn't have happened.
@vivify saidUN Charter Article 2 Section 7:
That's because the West gave no thought what to do after toppling Gadaffi. If the UN had a thought-out system for removing dictators, the resulting mess wouldn't have happened.
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."
https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/
The UN has no "thought-out system for removing dictators" because the treaty authorizing its existence and binding on its members explicitly bars such interference in the domestic affairs of a State.
@no1marauder saidNotice I said "the West" and *not* "the UN", since Gaddafi was removed through a US-Led NATO coalition. Gaddafi garnered the ire of the western world, which is why he was removed; that, and Libya was a valuable asset to the West. Therefore, I used "west" rather than "UN".
UN Charter Article 2 Section 7:
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement ...[text shortened]... nce and binding on its members explicitly bars such interference in the domestic affairs of a State.
@athousandyoung saidObama had the backing of the UN Security Council, and they voted to approve air strikes. Yes, they're not *quite* the same as the UN, but still.
The UN had a though out system that said don't remove the dictator actually. The USA wasn't and isn't too concerned with what the UN has to say.
Don't get me wrong: that in NO WAY justifies Obama's actions. But there should still be some sort of internationally agreed upon measure for removing dictators.
But then again, as I mentioned before, such power would inevitably be abused for political gain.
@vivify saidNothing should be done about them.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/13/belarus-100000-join-rally-against-lukashenko-on-eve-of-putin-showdown
100 thousand people protested against the Belarusian president, Lukashenko, who has a 26 year history of dictatorial behavior. This includes using deadly force to quell protesters. In the most recent election, a few of his political opponents have been jaile ...[text shortened]... thin the country succeed; if they do, it's usually after decades of dictatorial rule.
Thoughts?
Any actions you guys contemplate tend to always result in greater suffering, especially when the dictator is dislodged through war.
As it stands, Western nations are also ruled by oligarchs. What makes this seem different is only that the levels of prosperity are so high that transfers of power are seamless and that the oligarchs are so secure that they can afford giving liberties to the people, but this is something that we will see fade.
Have no faith in temporal powers.
@philokalia saidVery good point.
Nothing should be done about them.
Any actions you guys contemplate tend to always result in greater suffering, especially when the dictator is dislodged through war.
As it stands, Western nations are also ruled by oligarchs. What makes this seem different is only that the levels of prosperity are so high that transfers of power are seamless and that the oligarchs a ...[text shortened]... ies to the people, but this is something that we will see fade.
Have no faith in temporal powers.
@vivify saidOh well then there we go. UN Security Council authorization of force.
Obama had the backing of the UN Security Council, and they voted to approve air strikes. Yes, they're not *quite* the same as the UN, but still.
Don't get me wrong: that in NO WAY justifies Obama's actions. But there should still be some sort of internationally agreed upon measure for removing dictators.
But then again, as I mentioned before, such power would inevitably be abused for political gain.
@sonhouse saidVote him out and lock him up!
@AThousandYoung
What do we do with our own would be dictator?