4 ms·

When apartheid South Africa was a pariah state the world held the voting population of South Africa accountable as a collective, rather than just pretending it

by _djo_ 4y ago

When apartheid South Africa was a pariah state the world held the voting population of South Africa accountable as a collective, rather than just pretending it was only the elite in government making all choices. Although the system was corrupt and hardly a full free and fair election even within the limited racial franchise the country was allowed, the white voting public and corporate and civil society elite had more power than they chose to exercise. They were generally comfortable enough with the status quo to avoid rocking the boat and had developed a national culture that justified the worst of apartheid and attacks on neighbouring countries. They had to be forced out of their comfort zone to address their role in perpetuating the system. That became obvious when sanctions and disinvestments really bit in the late 1980s and pressure from within forced the government into reforms that ultimately ended apartheid and minority rule. I see no reason why the same should not apply to Russia. Indeed, I think that's part of the hope by following the same sanctions plus disinvestment route.

nebula8804 4y ago
By that logic Israel should have full sanctions applied to it based on their treatment of the Palestinians. Instead the west is supporting the continued operation of a full open air prison with which it is near impossible to escape and that people are born and die in. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in the West. There are no major reforms coming either. Instead the west is doubling down by imposing laws to even prevent the criticism of Israel by way of punishment. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
- _djo_ 4y ago
  This isn't a question about whether there's hypocrisy in global politics. Of course there is. You're arguing a separate point. It's about whether populations in cases like this can be said to be accountable, and be treated that way, rather than pretending it's only the elite who are making all the decisions and hold bad views. Israelis, for instance, are certainly collectively responsible for the actions of their government. It's not all just Netanyahu and a few others calling the shots.
carlosjobim 4y ago
Should the same apply to Western governments and their people? Should every American be held responsible for all the US war crimes and bombings in the Middle East, Africa etc? Or can that be filed under "whatabaoutism" and ignored?
- _djo_ 4y ago
  Yes, and we do. People absolutely blame Western populations for the governments they choose to elect, and act accordingly. How is this surprising? Should every American be held responsible for all the US war crimes and bombings This is a straw man. Nobody said every single Russian, or American, or Brit should be held solely and individually responsible, but that the population collectively should be.
- wyldfire 4y ago
  > Or can that be filed under "whatabaoutism" and ignored? One does not imply the other. It can be "whataboutism" in that it doesn't respond to the Russian topic in this thread. And we needn't ignore it. Write an article about the misdeeds of the Western governments and we'll discuss them in that thread. But US war crimes and bombings don't excuse Russia's current invasion of Ukraine.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Is it not true though that we seem to get much more upset when Russia does things wrong then when we do things wrong? Like, if we were to look at the body count of our respective militaries over the last 20 years the US military is clearly dominant in that regard, yet the outrage over Russia seems disproportional to the harm...is there not a lot of truth here that people seem less enthusiastic to discuss in the aggregate?
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      Nope. The US invaded Afghanistan with pretty much full international support and the authorisation of a UNSC resolution. The invasion of Iraq was far more murky, and nearly split the alliance between the US, UK, France, and Germany as a result. It also caused serious consequences to US power. But it wasn’t a reshaping of the world map, did not include annexation, and was rapidly regularised by UNSC resolutions because of the US’s commitment to allowing an independent government to be formed as well as elections it would not control. Most importantly though, the US-led coalition had the faintest cover of legal plausible deniability in UNSC 1441, which could be read as having authorised force because of Iraq’s ongoing noncompliance. I disagree with that interpretation, but it has never been fully settled. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was explicitly an annexation by force, and lacked even the pretence of any attempted justification under international law. Putin has also in speeches strongly implied that Ukraine is merely the first in his ambitions, that Russia had a ‘right’ to all the former frontier countries of both the USSR and the Russian Empire. Where the invasion of Iraq was a bending of international law and the post-WW2 consensus, Russia’s is a complete break of it, and a statement that sovereignty of smaller countries as protected by international law doesn’t matter at all. That’s why it’s treated differently.

by _djo_ 4y ago

nebula8804 4y ago

By that logic Israel should have full sanctions applied to it based on their treatment of the Palestinians. Instead the west is supporting the continued operation of a full open air prison with which it is near impossible to escape and that people are born and die in. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in the West. There are no major reforms coming either. Instead the west is doubling down by imposing laws to even prevent the criticism of Israel by way of punishment. [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

_djo_ 4y ago
This isn't a question about whether there's hypocrisy in global politics. Of course there is. You're arguing a separate point. It's about whether populations in cases like this can be said to be accountable, and be treated that way, rather than pretending it's only the elite who are making all the decisions and hold bad views. Israelis, for instance, are certainly collectively responsible for the actions of their government. It's not all just Netanyahu and a few others calling the shots.

carlosjobim 4y ago

Should the same apply to Western governments and their people? Should every American be held responsible for all the US war crimes and bombings in the Middle East, Africa etc? Or can that be filed under "whatabaoutism" and ignored?

_djo_ 4y ago
Yes, and we do. People absolutely blame Western populations for the governments they choose to elect, and act accordingly. How is this surprising? Should every American be held responsible for all the US war crimes and bombings This is a straw man. Nobody said every single Russian, or American, or Brit should be held solely and individually responsible, but that the population collectively should be.
wyldfire 4y ago
> Or can that be filed under "whatabaoutism" and ignored? One does not imply the other. It can be "whataboutism" in that it doesn't respond to the Russian topic in this thread. And we needn't ignore it. Write an article about the misdeeds of the Western governments and we'll discuss them in that thread. But US war crimes and bombings don't excuse Russia's current invasion of Ukraine.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Is it not true though that we seem to get much more upset when Russia does things wrong then when we do things wrong? Like, if we were to look at the body count of our respective militaries over the last 20 years the US military is clearly dominant in that regard, yet the outrage over Russia seems disproportional to the harm...is there not a lot of truth here that people seem less enthusiastic to discuss in the aggregate?
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    Nope. The US invaded Afghanistan with pretty much full international support and the authorisation of a UNSC resolution. The invasion of Iraq was far more murky, and nearly split the alliance between the US, UK, France, and Germany as a result. It also caused serious consequences to US power. But it wasn’t a reshaping of the world map, did not include annexation, and was rapidly regularised by UNSC resolutions because of the US’s commitment to allowing an independent government to be formed as well as elections it would not control. Most importantly though, the US-led coalition had the faintest cover of legal plausible deniability in UNSC 1441, which could be read as having authorised force because of Iraq’s ongoing noncompliance. I disagree with that interpretation, but it has never been fully settled. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was explicitly an annexation by force, and lacked even the pretence of any attempted justification under international law. Putin has also in speeches strongly implied that Ukraine is merely the first in his ambitions, that Russia had a ‘right’ to all the former frontier countries of both the USSR and the Russian Empire. Where the invasion of Iraq was a bending of international law and the post-WW2 consensus, Russia’s is a complete break of it, and a statement that sovereignty of smaller countries as protected by international law doesn’t matter at all. That’s why it’s treated differently.