5 ms·
I think the (disputable) argument is that, for global stability and equilibrium reasons, there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination
by jessriedel 9mo ago
I think the (disputable) argument is that, for global stability and equilibrium reasons, there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination of de facto heads of state, regardless of whether they were legitimately elected or are dictators.
- Muromec 9mo agoWe are not hovever optimizing for stabilitybanymore in Kali Yuga that we are living through
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- IMTDb 9mo agoCompanies can become « too big to fail » and dictatord can become « too powerful to fall » ?
- close04 9mo agoGeneral rules don’t apply to superpowers or the countries they protect. China, US, Russia get to do whatever their military or economic power affords them, unprovoked aggression, war crimes, terror acts. There are general rules against war crimes and they still happen day after day, under flimsy excuses. Bombed a hospital or a wedding party? There was a suspected terrorist there. White phosphorus over civilians? It was just for the smoke screen. Overthrew a government overseas? Freedom for those poor people.
- wiseowise 9mo agoRussia is a regional power, though.
- close04 9mo agoThe definition is probably not very precise. They started a war of aggression and every other country is tiptoeing around them. Iraq was also a regional power and got a very different treatment. So the “power” line isn’t so clear. China on the other hand doesn’t get visibly involved in almost any remote conflict and they’re obviously a (if not the) superpower.
- wiseowise 9mo agoRussia has neither industrial nor economic base to project power outside of its sphere of influence. The only reason why everyone tiptoes around them is because they’re world’s gas station that attacked world’s bread basket. And largest stockpile of nukes. China has everything that Russia lacks and more.
- close04 9mo agoWhen you have no power you get stomped. That “only” reason is (part of) the superpower. China was another example of superpower “style”. Not the Russian or US “let’s invade this country” or “let’s kidnap that leader”.
- michaelt 9mo agoRight but "Don't kidnap/assassinate the enemy leaders" is often a good policy even when nobody will enforce that rule on you by force. For example if your country is subject to a terror bombing campaign, it's very tempting to assassinate the one leader who had the power/respect/authority to order the attacks to start but often they're also the only leader who can order the attacks to stop In the 1970s/1980s presumably the UK could have had IRA leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness assassinated. But it sure turned out to be useful, in the late 1990s peace process, that the IRA had identifiable, living leaders who could engage in negotiation, sign an agreement, and get the bomb makers to stop making bombs.
- esafak 9mo agoThen nations become stuck with illegitimate leaders. That kind of undesirable stability is called hegemony. I think these affairs ought to be handled through international bodies. The UN seems to have no mechanism for it.
- woooooo 9mo agoWell, as always, who decides the leader is illegitimate? Are the Saudis illegitimate, according the the rubric we put on Maduro? The UN deliberately has no mechanism for this because it's a talking shop intended to help avoid war by providing a talking venue. That's the whole idea, they're not the world police, there is no such thing. They're a forum. I'm absolutely not defending any given dictator but history shows that every attempt to remove a dictator "for the greater good" is usually 1) selfishly motivated and 2) backfires horribly.
- ModernMech 9mo agoAlso 3) not ever about the the greater good, that’s a pretext
- nkmnz 9mo agoHow exactly did the removal of Hitler backfire?
- woooooo 9mo agoI think WW2 had a little bit more justification than whatever this is.
- andsoitis 9mo agoImagine if Hitler was removed before... Instead, foreign powers favored appeasement and trade; conservative elites thought they could control him, Nazi propaganda and terror consolidated power, and Germans were disillusioned with democracy after WW1.
- 47293629278 9mo ago[flagged]
- andy_ppp 9mo agoI can see how all of this is about leftists on HN, well done.
- andsoitis 9mo ago> , there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination of de facto heads of state, regardless of whether they were legitimately elected or are dictators. Since ideas don't execute themselves, who would you pick to enforce this prohibition, never mind even getting 100%(?) alignment from countries what the conditions are for "kidnap", "assassination", and "de facto head of state"?
- 1718627440 9mo agoPublic opinion?
- andsoitis 9mo ago> Public opinion? Opinion, public or not, cannot enforce anything.
- 1718627440 9mo agoIt can be what forces people to do something or to resign?
- komali2 9mo agoOf who? If the PRC invades Taiwan and starts brutally oppressing the people here, you ostensibly have 1.3 billion people in support, plus possibly PRC allied, a non insignificant number of tankies abroad...
- 1718627440 9mo agoIf people would still default to boycotting war-mongering states, the PRC would have a serious economic problem afterwards. Since, the relevant states (EU) are already in a (mild) crisis, they messed up there foreign economic diversity and individualism is all the rage now, there won't be.
- komali2 9mo ago
- Sporktacular 9mo agoIt's not about what should be the case. It IS the case. If we should decide to change that it won't work if one government unilaterally decides who stays or who goes for obvious reasons. Last month we saw Trump prostrate himself before MBS, who is apparently totally legitimate.