Is it a good idea for Western countries to push hard on other countries to adopt LGBT rights?

Of course LGBT people should have their rights protected everywhere. But what is the best way to bring that about - one that won't backfire?

In many countries, non-Western ones, former colonies, and former Communist states, new restrictions on LGBT people have been put in place to defend against so-called "foreign," even "colonial" or "imperialist" forces such as the US (not so much under Trump), the EU, European States, or NGOs, that are trying to "subvert" their traditional way of life. (I'll leave aside the fact that anti-sodomy laws were first introduced in many countries under colonial rule.) Railing against the decadent West and its governments' and NGO's attempts to infiltrate their social mores has also helped to prop up authoritarian rulers.

I think it's a bad idea for the West to stop promoting LGBT rights. LGBT activists around the world are asking for Western governments and institutions to help them. But how forcefully should they do so?

1. The most extreme way to do so would be to impose governmental economic sanctions on places that restrict LGBT rights. Is this ever justified, and should it only be done if it is done consistently (ie, on both African countries with oppressive laws and on countries like Saudi Arabia)?

2. Then there is the issue of aid from Western governments to developing countries. Should aid be withheld or withdrawn from countries that discriminate against LGBT people (and should this only be done if done consistently)? Or, in a non-punishment way of doing things, should additional aid be offered as an incentive if LGBT rights are recognized? (This may still be perceived as coercion, though.)

(It's worth noting that China is willing to provide aid and investment to countries around the world without any human rights requirements, and tying Western aid to LGBT rights might have the result of lessening Western influence overall as countries turn to China and other emerging powers.)

3. Should Western countries meet with (either inside or outside their home countries), train, award, or give a platform to LGBT activists from countries where LGBT rights are under threat? This can give ammunition to the whole "the CIA is plotting a coup against our government under the guise of State Department assistance to LGBT activists" argument that authoritarian leaders have used. It can even lead to (and I would say it already as led to) laws that restrict or ban Western NGOs (including religious groups) altogether because they are seen as fronts for their governments and intelligence agencies.

4. Looking at the private sector, how much aid should Western NGOs (and religious groups) give to LGBT activists abroad who engage in antigovernment demonstrations and who are part of the political opposition? If so, what kind of aid? How should they go about criticizing regimes and leaders who oppress LGBT people?

5. Should Western citizens boycott countries that oppress LGBT people? Should they be worried about a backlash in those countries that might lead to worse laws for LGBT people or to more authoritarianism in those countries in general?

In 3-5, the whole issue of consistency (if you're going to work against anti-LGBT laws in one country, you need to do it in every country, even in your allies and business partners) is relevant. How much should it matter? Should we consider the risk of losing political and economic ties by pushing too hard and therefore losing whatever leverage the West has to promote LGBT or other rights?

Finally, should the West perhaps refrain in being to arrogant in criticizing former colonies, in particular, for their human rights abuses when the West has been active for so long in directly or indirectly (through political, military, and economic support for oppressive regimes) harming the human rights of people in those countries? Does adding a whole new, and very controversial in much of the non-Western world, agenda to the push for human rights (by which I mean LGBT rights), one that the home population in many Western countries is not even entirely united behind, give traditionalists in the rest of the world a valid reason to complain about Western overreach and cultural imperialism?
«1

Comments

  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I'm a bit pragmatic here: whatever gives the best results.
  • Sanctions don't seem to have a good track record of forcing policy changes. They are however good at hurting economies (with the poor disproportionately suffering).

    The West is simply not going to sanction Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States (well, except maybe Qatar because Saudi hates them). So that leaves mainly African countries, who would naturally conclude that the West has one standard for rich allies and another for impoverished countries- which of course they do. That would undermine whatever good the sanctions might have done from the beginning.

    Most of these countries don't need another valid reason to complain about Western imperialism, because Western imperialism never stopped. This imperialism is not above exploiting human rights causes for political purposes, sometimes as a political weapon, sometimes with actual weapons smuggled in under guise of humanitarian aid.

    It probably needs to be looked at on a case by case basis but I think the West and its human rights apparatus is viewed fairly cynically in most of the places it would ostensibly help- and not just by corrupt local leaders using anti-imperialist sloganeering to distract from their own misrule. Quietly encouraging local voices instead of dictating via governments is probably the best way long term. I think there are many people who, given time to listen and process the experiences of LGBT people, are ready for a change of heart. If it feels like a political imposition, though, that stymies this process.
  • The Americans have tied their foreign aid to antiabortion. Which has greatly harmed everything about women's health in the developing world. Let's start with fucking right off with that.

    And given that I wonder about everything foisted upon people who have different values and customs. I like the Star Trek Prime Directive even when it pisses me off.
  • Also, the anti-lgbt laws in many countries are actually the result of the old colonial powers.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    In most places, yes. Not so sure about Uganda though - the Martyrs were condemned because they spoke against the behaviour at the Court and those who subsequently overthrew Mwanga and brought in anti-sodomy laws were Africans also, not white invaders.
  • And given that I wonder about everything foisted upon people who have different values and customs. I like the Star Trek Prime Directive even when it pisses me off.
    Same here.

  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited August 3
    Human rights seem to be under attack everywhere, mostly because such capacity as has ever existed for governments to see human beings has been lost. In a world where we are all exclusively units of economic exploitation and/or politica coertion, the LGBTQ+ community is not the only group that suffer. Anyone poor, or old, or the wrong colour, or the wrong gender, is declared irrelevant.

    ETA: cheap rhetoric notwithstanding, any kind of mental or emotional quirk seems also to be grounds for un-personing.
  • The Star Trek Prime Directive is, ISTM, so sensible as to be worth adopting by every person of goodwill.

    It's ironic, is it not, that it stems from a fictional TV/film series?
  • Colonialism - historical and contemporary - isn't exactly in line with the Prime Directive. Neither is USA evangelicals promoting homophobia around the world.

  • I seem to recall that quite often the Prime Directive in Star Trek was invoked as an argument against Kirk, Picard, et al, doing the 'right thing' even if it directly contravened the Prime Directive. Kirk, usually, and maybe Picard less often, would then go on to do the 'right thing' anyway.
  • Colonialism - historical and contemporary - isn't exactly in line with the Prime Directive. Neither is USA evangelicals promoting homophobia around the world.

    It's not just USA evangelicals. We have one (a retired PTO priest) in our congregation. Lovely chap though he is in many ways, I recently had to firmly request him to stop sending me anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda via e-mail.
    I seem to recall that quite often the Prime Directive in Star Trek was invoked as an argument against Kirk, Picard, et al, doing the 'right thing' even if it directly contravened the Prime Directive. Kirk, usually, and maybe Picard less often, would then go on to do the 'right thing' anyway.

    I'm afraid I haven't watched enough Star Trek episodes to be able to comment on that, but I daresay you're right!
  • The Prime Directive supposedly also applied only to civilizations that had not yet achieved space flight or made contact with other aliens. And yes, it was often honoured in the breach, not the observance.

    I do think, however, that when decide not to interfere in e.g. another country's persecution of a despised minority, we still have an obligation to accept refugees from that country's persecution. If we decide to not interfere AND refuse asylum, we've gone way past respect: we're complicit.

    And as for the Rome, Romans, argument: even if the dominant group believes it is culturally acceptable to persecute certain people, the people being persecuted know for sure it is wrong. Kind of like how slaves know slavery is wrong, even if their "owners" don't agree.
  • Colonialism - historical and contemporary - isn't exactly in line with the Prime Directive. Neither is USA evangelicals promoting homophobia around the world.

    That's the point. Homosexuality exists as part of general human nature. Probably biological. It's abhorrent when people are persecuted for their status, whether race, sexual, gender, culture, national origin, accent, everything. But it's not okay to imperialist about it. It's a fraught problem. I'm all for anything that will change attitudes but not for punishing those who don't think like me.

    Many traditional societies prohibit or allow or don't care about homosexuality. Colonial powers which have influenced or imposed are responsible for support of the persecuted. Including accepting them as immigrants.

    I draw a complete distinction between traditional societies and the inheritors and enforcers of colonial persecution. These societies have "warp technology" ( space flight faster than light). You may not persecute your own using colonial tech.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    I think any Prime Directive invocation has to pass the "do we liberate Auschwitz or not?" test. If you're talking about people being maltreated and possibly even killed, the answer, "Well, the Germans just don't like Jews, who are we to interfere?" must at least be defended. I would think the human inclination would always be for the underdog in any power relationship that is resulting in abuse or death.

    And no, this is not an invocation of Godwin's Law so get over it.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I think any Prime Directive invocation has to pass the "do we liberate Auschwitz or not?" test. If you're talking about people being maltreated and possibly even killed, the answer, "Well, the Germans just don't like Jews, who are we to interfere?" must at least be defended. I would think the human inclination would always be for the underdog in any power relationship that is resulting in abuse or death.

    And no, this is not an invocation of Godwin's Law so get over it.

    Given that Auschwitz and the extermination of European Jewry was during a war, it isn't the same.

    There are plenty of Star Trek episodes about persecuted minorities. They never had simple answers. The extreme about extermination is the easy question to answer.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    If they had started exterminating Jews before any war was declared, we would have been hands-off?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited August 4
    Yes, Kirk is known for bending/breaking the Prime Directive...except once.

    tl;dr

    A disturbed McCoy went through a time portal, and Kirk and Spock followed him. They all wound up in the 20th century on Earth--1930s, I think. McC saved Edith, a local community do-gooder, from being run over in the street. K later met E, and they fell in love. In the meantime, S and K found out that that she was meant to die in that accident; the timeline had been disturbed; she was now going to become an international peace activist, delaying America's entry into WWII, and allowing The Angry Guy With The Funny Mustache to take over everything. Much angst. Later, E headed into the street, and McC went to save her again from being run over--and Kirk stepped in and held him back. E died; the world was saved; K, S, and McC went back through the portal; and K was so shaken that S wiped the whole thing from his mind.

    The Prime Directive ain't easy.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I don't think the LGBT rights discussion has anything to with the Star Trek prime directive.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    If they had started exterminating Jews before any war was declared, we would have been hands-off?

    The Tsarist Russians did. We did nothing. We certainly wouldn't have gone to war about it and the Nazis would have denied it and disproved it in the face of the smoking chimneys. But they never did. I've stood in the internally disguised gas chamber of Dachau. It was never used. But if it had been, before September '39, France and Britain would have done what? Let alone the US?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    LeRoc wrote: »
    I don't think the LGBT rights discussion has anything to with the Star Trek prime directive.

    I think the reason for bringing it up on this thread was as a possible aid in figuring out the problem in the thread title.
  • The Prime Directive isn't really relevant when a planet's civilizations is/are aware of the existence of other planetary civilizations with warp technology, have been contacted by one or more of those civilizations, and, willingly or unwillingly, have already have their way of life greatly impacted by that contact. Unless we are talking about uncontested tribes in the Amazon or Papua New Guinea, I don't think it's a very good comparison.

    Getting back to non-science fiction, I think in terms of my OP we need to differentiate between:

    1. Advocating for the decriminalization of homosexuality and the basic safety of LGBT people.

    2. Advocating for the ability of LGBT people to work, study, and find housing without fear of having their lives ruined if they are outed or choose to come out.

    3. Advocating for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, same sex marriage, and legal recognition of trans people's gender (in those non-western countries where there isn't an old tradition of recognizing a third gender or transgender).

    I think the priority for advocates of LGBT rights worldwide should be number 1. What's the best way to go about that?

    What should religious leaders do whose denominations have large populations in countries with horrible laws for LGBT people? Should the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Western Anglican Primates denounce Anglican Bishops who do not stand for the decriminalization of homosexuality in their home countries? Should the Pope do the same (I'm not sure what the RCC's stance is on the criminalization of homosexuality in countries where it is currently illegal)? Could doing so put clerical and lay Christians from those denominations at risk of personal harassment in places where there are inter religious tensions or even of legal harassment from governments that tend to harass all Christians, Western Christians, or all religions anyway and are looking for an excuse?
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited August 5
    I'd run together Stonespring's numbers 1 and 2, simply because I think it is a basic human right to be able to have a safe roof over one's head, the opportunity to learn and then to earn a living.

    Legal recognition of relationships is a more difficult question, especially in those cultures where friendship outside the family circle is seen very much as inferior to family and tribal/clan loyalties. Whether or not a relationship is seen, or termed, as marriage is irrelevant, it is the ability to have a close and intimate relationship outside the family - and without the need for family approval - that is the issue.

    In the case of transgender, this is bound to be difficult in those countries and cultures where only one gender is recognised as being worthy of autonomy and where the acquisition of a wife can excite less interest than the ownership of a falcon or racehorse.
    What should religious leaders do whose denominations have large populations in countries with horrible laws for LGBT people? Should the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Western Anglican Primates denounce Anglican Bishops who do not stand for the decriminalization of homosexuality in their home countries? Should the Pope do the same (I'm not sure what the RCC's stance is on the criminalization of homosexuality in countries where it is currently illegal)? Could doing so put clerical and lay Christians from those denominations at risk of personal harassment in places where there are inter religious tensions or even of legal harassment from governments that tend to harass all Christians, Western Christians, or all religions anyway and are looking for an excuse?
    I think that archbishops Welby and Idowu-Fearon have a Christian, moral duty to stand up for the basic human rights of the LGBTI+, and that includes calling out, and disciplining if necessary, their fellow primates and bishops who won't accept that others of God's children have an equal right to live in peace and tranquility, free from fear of violence, and be treated with respect. For any pastor, or whatever rank, who calls him or herself Christian, to seek to deny a fellow human being the right to a decent life goes against every teaching of Christ. The moral cowardice displayed by Archbishop Welby, in particular, on this issue, is a scandal and says far more about him, and the true beliefs of the wing of the Church of England that he represents, than any argument that could be mounted by LGBTI+ campaigners such as Peter Tatchell.

    The position of the Roman Catholic Church in this regard is even worse. While you have an entire organisation that decrees homosexuality as something unnatural and a moral failure there is no hope for it being anything other than a partner - sometimes silent, sometimes very vocal - of those governments and institutions that seek to penalise and persecute the LGBTI+. Mealy-mouthed statements by the Vatican that say they recognise that being homosexual is not a choice are not credible, it is plain they are a fig-leaf applied in the hopes that the RCC's persecution of gay people can continue without the rest of the world calling it out for unchristianity.

    The argument that some, especially the present ABC, advance that the church pursuing human rights for the LGBTI+ would jeopardise Christians in countries where they are already at risk is disingenuous. Christians in, say, Pakistan have always been marginalised, and the same is true for most of the moslem world. Likewise, African countries where people are persecuted are not noted for the adherence of their rulers to Christian standards of justice, mercy and love.

    The churches stood by and did nothing while slavery went on in north america, and some churchmen used the same arguments that any attempt to stop slavery would make matters worse. Moral cowardice wasn't a valid excuse then and it isn't now.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    TheOrganist, What power do you think that the Abp of Canterbury has to discipline the Primate of another church in the Anglican communion?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    The Quakers/Friends were quite involved with helping slaves in the US. I don't know if there was any official, denomination-wide stance--but I'm not sure if they were structured in a way that they could do it.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    TheOrganist--

    May I carefully ask for explanation of something in your post?

    You said that the Catholic church persecutes LGBT folks. I'm used to "persecute" meaning actively moving against someone: throwing them in jail, disappearing them, torturing them, killing them. Are you using "persecute" in that sense? Is the RCC doing any of that currently?

    Or are you using it to mean "still thinking being LGBT is a sin", "chalking clergy abuse up to gay priests", "not being willing to face reality, nor be compassionate about it", etc.?

    I do NOT mean to minimize the difficulties that LGBT folks go through. I was just startled by the word, and want to learn.

    Thanks for your patience.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    TheOrganist, What power do you think that the Abp of Canterbury has to discipline the Primate of another church in the Anglican communion?

    Not Canterbury but Idowu-Fearon. If the Anglican Communion could impose sanctions on the US church over same-sex marriage then it could also, if it chose, impose sanctions on other churches for their overt homophobia. Mealy-mouthed statements about disagreeing well don't cut it anymore, if they ever did.

    To put it in vulgar parlance, its time Canterbury and Idowu-Fearon grew a pair.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    mousethief wrote: »
    If they had started exterminating Jews before any war was declared, we would have been hands-off?

    In the 1940’s. Not convinced.

    Evidence of what was happening to the Jews and other groups was shared with other governments during the war. Much of it was dismissed it as exaggerations / fantasies until the camps were liberated at the end of the War. Because no one was going to spend that much time and resource doing that when there was a war to be won, right?!

    I don't think any country relaxed their immigration policies etc to make it easier for refugees fleeing Germany to enter their countries in the run-up to the war. Even though the intimidation, asset stripping and encouragement to leave was well documented. One of the most uncomfortable questions about this period is how more many lives could have been saved if governments had been more willing to open their borders.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    There was at least one big ship, full of Jewish refugees, that countries turned away. US included. Don't remember what it was called. IIRC, they went back to Europe...
  • No state is going to intervene to stop genocide unless there is some geopolitical advantage to be gained by doing so. Absent that, people around the world who want to actually do something about it have to volunteer or support those who do, and risk prosecution from their own governments. A lot of people were reporting about the horrors of Pol Pot but it only ended when Vietnam was compelled to intervene when the Khmer Rouge attacked them. Then the Vietnamese got international censure for installing a puppet government.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    TheOrganist, What power do you think that the Abp of Canterbury has to discipline the Primate of another church in the Anglican communion?

    Not Canterbury but Idowu-Fearon. If the Anglican Communion could impose sanctions on the US church over same-sex marriage then it could also, if it chose, impose sanctions on other churches for their overt homophobia. Mealy-mouthed statements about disagreeing well don't cut it anymore, if they ever did.

    To put it in vulgar parlance, its time Canterbury and Idowu-Fearon grew a pair.

    I'm sorry, but I had not read that sort of limitation from your post: I think that archbishops Welby and Idowu-Fearon have a Christian, moral duty to stand up for the basic human rights of the LGBTI+, and that includes calling out, and disciplining if necessary, their fellow primates and bishops who won't accept that others of God's children have an equal right to live in peace and tranquility, free from fear of violence, and be treated with respect. Just what power does either of them have to discipline a fellow primate?
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited August 5
    Golden Key wrote: »
    There was at least one big ship, full of Jewish refugees, that countries turned away. US included. Don't remember what it was called. IIRC, they went back to Europe...

    The MS St Louis. Some found sanctuary elsewhere but over half were forced back to go back Germany.

    Basically, look at what governments did back then ... And assume they won't be doing much better now relating to (insert issue of choice here). The majority of individuals will be exactly the same. The people who did stuff / do stuff seem to be the exception rather than rule.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Tubbs--

    Thx for the name.

    Your last two lines make me think of the Kitty Genovese murder case, back in the '60s. The original story put out said no one would help her, or even call the cops. (The truth turns out to be much more complicated. Her brother (who never knew her, IIRC) dug up a lot of info.) It was used as an example of "Bystander Effect" (Wikipedia).
  • A lot of people were reporting about the horrors of Pol Pot but it only ended when Vietnam was compelled to intervene when the Khmer Rouge attacked them.

    And you don't even have to go that far back -- other examples include the well documented inaction in the face of a clearly telegraphed genocide in Rwanda and turning the blind eye to Saddam gassing the Kurds (and then recycling this atrocity later as an excuse for overthrowing his government).
  • Who gave him the gas?
  • A lot of people were reporting about the horrors of Pol Pot but it only ended when Vietnam was compelled to intervene when the Khmer Rouge attacked them.

    And you don't even have to go that far back -- other examples include the well documented inaction in the face of a clearly telegraphed genocide in Rwanda and turning the blind eye to Saddam gassing the Kurds (and then recycling this atrocity later as an excuse for overthrowing his government).

    Right, I brought up the Vietnam invasion of Cambodia because it's a case where an intervention actually ended a genocide, and the loud Western purveyors of human rights backed the Khmer Rouge and allowed them to keep their UN seat for years afterward.

    Rwanda's genocide was ended by the action of armed Tutsis, and again the West, after so much ineffectual outrage about the genocide, resented the people who actually ended it and even assisted the Hutu killers escaping into Eastern Congo where they set up "refugee camps" from which they organized new militia (FDLR) and continued to launch attacks on Congolese Tutsis.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I haven't been following this thread, and I'm not going to go back and read through it to check whether anyone has already said this.

    I can't speak for the USA. It's not my country. However, for reasons that ought to be self-evident to all shipmates and that have nothing to do with this particular issue, the UK has forfeited all right to claim to be entitled to tell other countries how they ought to behave.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    TheOrganist--

    May I carefully ask for explanation of something in your post?

    You said that the Catholic church persecutes LGBT folks. I'm used to "persecute" meaning actively moving against someone: throwing them in jail, disappearing them, torturing them, killing them. Are you using "persecute" in that sense? Is the RCC doing any of that currently?
    I mean in the sense that there is still active promotion of so-called conversion therapy for gays. Just in case you are in any doubt about how bad that is, this should give you some idea.
    Or are you using it to mean "still thinking being LGBT is a sin", "chalking clergy abuse up to gay priests", "not being willing to face reality, nor be compassionate about it", etc.?
    Certainly there is a dangerous belief in some catholic clergy that the problem of child abuse is down to gay clergy, ignoring the cases of girls who are abused by priests. For decades the RCC has closed its eyes to abuse of all kinds - in fact it still does. The good cardinal refused to attend when asked to do so, pleading ill health - obviously nothing major since he was well enough to carry out engagements in his Archdiocese.
    I do NOT mean to minimize the difficulties that LGBT folks go through. I was just startled by the word, and want to learn.

    Thanks for your patience.
    I used the word persecute in relation to LGBTI+ lay people: the RCC church will do its level best to publicly condemn members of its worshipping community, while at the same time sparing no effort to shield, protect and defend predatory abusers within the ranks of its clergy - but then that should come as no surprise to anyone who takes the effort to find out what is going on.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    TheOrganist, What power do you think that the Abp of Canterbury has to discipline the Primate of another church in the Anglican communion?

    Not Canterbury but Idowu-Fearon. If the Anglican Communion could impose sanctions on the US church over same-sex marriage then it could also, if it chose, impose sanctions on other churches for their overt homophobia. Mealy-mouthed statements about disagreeing well don't cut it anymore, if they ever did.

    To put it in vulgar parlance, its time Canterbury and Idowu-Fearon grew a pair.

    I'm sorry, but I had not read that sort of limitation from your post: I think that archbishops Welby and Idowu-Fearon have a Christian, moral duty to stand up for the basic human rights of the LGBTI+, and that includes calling out, and disciplining if necessary, their fellow primates and bishops who won't accept that others of God's children have an equal right to live in peace and tranquility, free from fear of violence, and be treated with respect.
    Just what power does either of them have to discipline a fellow primate?
    Well, a good start would be to not have them at the next Lambeth Conference. If they're prepared to upset people by not asking the partners of bishops in same-sex marriages, to be even-handed they should withdraw invitations from those primates whose pronouncements would, if made in the UK, cause them to be prosecuted for hate speech.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    TheOrganist: Well, a good start would be to not have them at the next Lambeth Conference. If they're prepared to upset people by not asking the partners of bishops in same-sex marriages, to be even-handed they should withdraw invitations from those primates whose pronouncements would, if made in the UK, cause them to be prosecuted for hate speech.

    Why are you assuming they would wish to attend?
  • Regarding RCC rhetoric on LGBT issues in local contexts, this article on Poland is interesting.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/unrest-feared-poland-catholic-church-doubles-down-anti-gay-rhetoric-n1038656

    Should the Pope rein in such rhetoric when it gets too hurtful? How?
  • When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 7
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.

    Why choose that particular point to draw the line though? Should we have kept quiet about Brunei's recent stoning to death law? It's not genocide or mass murder, but people stoned to death are just as dead as victims of genocide.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    TheOrganist: Well, a good start would be to not have them at the next Lambeth Conference. If they're prepared to upset people by not asking the partners of bishops in same-sex marriages, to be even-handed they should withdraw invitations from those primates whose pronouncements would, if made in the UK, cause them to be prosecuted for hate speech.

    Why are you assuming they would wish to attend?
    Because they always do?
  • When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.
    So you're happy that the UK and US (among many) say absolutely nothing about the lack of basic rights for citizens in most of the Gulf states, and the total lack of any rights for the millions of migrant workers employed there?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.
    So you're happy that the UK and US (among many) say absolutely nothing about the lack of basic rights for citizens in most of the Gulf states, and the total lack of any rights for the millions of migrant workers employed there?

    You say it. Whatever it is. Here. Say what you'd say in the UN, as P.M., foreign secretary.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    When dealing with sovereign states (as opposed to religious groups or individuals) one should also consider whether you would be comfortable with another sovereign state pushing their morals/ethics/laws/etc on you? If the answer is no, you should do likewise.

    The cases of mass murder and genocide are, obviously different, when dealing whether to intervene or not.

    Why choose that particular point to draw the line though? Should we have kept quiet about Brunei's recent stoning to death law? It's not genocide or mass murder, but people stoned to death are just as dead as victims of genocide.

    Again, what should we have said? Bearing in mind that they haven't stoned anyone to death and in all possibility won't.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    A lot of people were reporting about the horrors of Pol Pot but it only ended when Vietnam was compelled to intervene when the Khmer Rouge attacked them.

    And you don't even have to go that far back -- other examples include the well documented inaction in the face of a clearly telegraphed genocide in Rwanda and turning the blind eye to Saddam gassing the Kurds (and then recycling this atrocity later as an excuse for overthrowing his government).

    Right, I brought up the Vietnam invasion of Cambodia because it's a case where an intervention actually ended a genocide, and the loud Western purveyors of human rights backed the Khmer Rouge and allowed them to keep their UN seat for years afterward.

    Rwanda's genocide was ended by the action of armed Tutsis, and again the West, after so much ineffectual outrage about the genocide, resented the people who actually ended it and even assisted the Hutu killers escaping into Eastern Congo where they set up "refugee camps" from which they organized new militia (FDLR) and continued to launch attacks on Congolese Tutsis.

    And both of those genocides were caused by failed US intervention.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited August 7
    Martin54 wrote: »
    A lot of people were reporting about the horrors of Pol Pot but it only ended when Vietnam was compelled to intervene when the Khmer Rouge attacked them.

    And you don't even have to go that far back -- other examples include the well documented inaction in the face of a clearly telegraphed genocide in Rwanda and turning the blind eye to Saddam gassing the Kurds (and then recycling this atrocity later as an excuse for overthrowing his government).

    Right, I brought up the Vietnam invasion of Cambodia because it's a case where an intervention actually ended a genocide, and the loud Western purveyors of human rights backed the Khmer Rouge and allowed them to keep their UN seat for years afterward.

    Rwanda's genocide was ended by the action of armed Tutsis, and again the West, after so much ineffectual outrage about the genocide, resented the people who actually ended it and even assisted the Hutu killers escaping into Eastern Congo where they set up "refugee camps" from which they organized new militia (FDLR) and continued to launch attacks on Congolese Tutsis.

    And both of those genocides were caused by failed US intervention.

    In Cambodia you might be able to make a case for that- some people argue that the American carpet bombing of Cambodia contributed significantly the Khmer Rouge's rise to power- but not Rwanda.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Who gave him the gas?

    Precursors: Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). And, of course, the US. The Germans built the hardware.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    The Star Trek Prime Directive is, ISTM, so sensible as to be worth adopting by every person of goodwill.

    It's ironic, is it not, that it stems from a fictional TV/film series?

    God obviously follows it to the letter. Except when being a bloke.
Sign In or Register to comment.