8 ms·
Observation: The world community really needs to figure out how to deal with failed states. And the real, live humans that suffer in those states. The list go
by johansch 10y ago
Observation:
The world community really needs to figure out how to deal with failed states. And the real, live humans that suffer in those states.
The list goes on: Venezuela, Syria, Libya, North Korea, etc.
- Nicholas_C 10y agoGot any ideas?
- johansch 10y ago1. Tear down the UN since it has failed. Russia, China or the US will always block something. The security council is clearly dysfunctional. 2. Establish e.g. EU humanitarian intervention taskforce. And the same for ASEAN? And maybe even North America when it's ready to re-join the global community again? [ :) ]. I think the key is to de-couple things from Russia and China at least until they themselves begin to be responsible citizens in the global community.
- aftbit 10y agoThe UN was not created to be a humanitarian force. The UN (like the League of Nations before it) was created to prevent another world war. The League failed, but since we haven't had WW3, I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the UN has failed.
- johansch 10y agoSure, you have a point there. So perhaps the issue we see now is that we have lots of humanitarian hotspots around the world and we need another organization than the UN to deal with it? Can they co-exist?
- BariumBlue 10y agoThe UN currently functions as more of a common public forum, where any country may voice their opinion and all are heard and may discuss. Even North Korea has been admitted to the UN. In fostering discussion and enabling rational diplomacy between nations, it has been a success.
- vkou 10y agoIs #2 just another name for NATO? Because it's (not entirely, but in large part) responsible for a number of humanitarian crises. Iraq, Libya, Syria spring to mind. All three were much better off before they were invaded, or pushed into civil war. Oh, and the UN is a red herring. NATO does as NATO wants - UN approval is only useful in improving their domestic cases for going to war.
- mercurial 10y agoSyria was invaded by NATO?
- vkou 10y agoThe Syrian civil war was initially a conflict between Assad, and the Free Syrian Army, into which NATO poured munitions, training, and 'volunteers' from the Lybian civil war, letting it blossomed into a multi-directional hellscape, involving Assad, the FSA, Kurdish groups, and notably, Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, Al Nusra (Which, ironically, is considered by the West to be a 'moderate' group in the conflict. We've done a good job of bombing the people they've been fighting against.) Soon after that, ISIS, the estranged lovechild of the Iraqi civil war enters the picture. No, Syria wasn't invaded by NATO - instead, NATO poured, and continues to pour oil on that fire, because instead of making the situation better, it would rather fight a proxy war with Russia. Despite our best efforts at supporting the rebel groups, and bombing Assad, he's still in power. Given that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that had the conflict been left to resolve itself, he would have won fairly quickly - or at least, by now, most of the country would be under his control, as opposed to a five-way horror-show. We'd also probably be seeing a lot fewer beheading videos on Twitter. NATO's perspective on the whole conflict, start to end, was not humanitarian - but rather as a question of "What can we do to stick it to the Russians, and topple Assad?"
- havetocharge 10y agoYou're proposing to tear down the organization that's responsible for international cooperation in order to improve the said cooperation? Or do you propose to stop cooperating altogether? Not necessarily disagreeing that UN is dysfunctional, but your proposal is not constructive (and biased).
- oh_sigh 10y agoIt sounds like you're assuming that, just because a group has certain intentions, that the actions they perform further those intentions.
- unabridged 10y ago>Tear down the UN since it has failed. Russia, China or the US will always block something. The security council is clearly dysfunctional. This is the point of the UN. Major powers get to block things with a vote instead of with force.
- lisivka 10y agoBut Russia is not playing by these rules any longer, so it uses UN to block US and China, while doing what it wants.
- vermontdevil 10y agoThe US too. We need to stop invading other countries.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoNot all of those states have failed equally. North Korea is a lot more problematic to approach than Venezuela.
- vkou 10y agoWell, not starting a civil war in two of those four would help. That horse already bolted. North Korea is a failed state by design.
- pakitan 10y agoLibya was doing just fine until "the world" decided to deal with it. Some might say the same about Syria as well.
- pavlov 10y agoWhat? Libya and Syria were not just fine on their own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_events_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_events_of_the_Syrian...
- sampo 10y agoIf the West had not supported the rebels, the dictators could have crushed the rebels, and the countries could have gone back to relative stable life, albeit under a harsh regime. With less loss of lives that what happened now.
- pavlov 10y agoIs that the plot of Rogue One in an alternate universe? :P Everybody who is not an autocrat themselves wanted to see Gaddafi and Al-Assad go, once it looked like it could happen... But the rebellion was initially homegrown, and that's the point. The countries were not stable to begin with.
- rolodato 10y agoThe problem is that Venezuela's government doesn't recognize that they failed. They blame all their self-generated problems on US imperialism, subversive right wingers, counter-revolutionaries and whatever nonsense they can come up with. So even if there was an international motivation to give help, Venezuela would most likely not take it. Not to mention the rampant corruption, which requires force to solve.
- BariumBlue 10y agoGenerally, most countries don't accept they they've "failed". NK doesn't think they've failed, nor does Assad, nor any govt. that continues to stay in power.
- yongjik 10y agoAs a South Korean, let me kindly remind you that you don't want a (single) solution to deal with "failed states". Venezuela, Syria, Libya, and North Korea all have different problems, allies, enemies, and possible roads for improving people's lives. To consider any one of them as a "problem to be solved" is already begging the question; to consider them at the same time is hubris.