The problem is though, what if the situation, like this, isn't actually a threat to international peace and security but a simple matter of the people running a country absolutely and totally abusing it's citizens human rights?Pies4shaw wrote:Stui, the UN Security Council is already empowered to act in response to a threat to international peace and security. The place to start is the Security Council's powers under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter. The question of what constitutes such a threat is a matter left to the political proceses of the Council. Thus, the Security Council could authorise the use of force, if it chose. For well-known reasons (including the voting alignments of the permanent members with the veto power), it probably won't.
NK is one, Zimbabwe would probably qualify as would some other African countries. A dictator (whether elected or not) and his family and cronies life the palatial life while the 99% have utterly zero chance for a decent life.
It's actually a moral and ethical question and I appreciate that it's a loaded one. Who decides what those human rights are? I doubt that people in The Congo would appreciate the western view, nor would many of the many "non-white" countries appreciate seeing the old white brigade paternalistically coming in to sort out the mess.
Economic sanctions don't work, trying to give aid doesn't work, the only real solution in some of these places would be to replace the government and senior people with a caretaker government charged with building infrastructure, funded by international donations, until the country is able to stand up again.
Unfortunately the track record of those african countries that were colonsised and governed by Europeans who built all the infrastructure, isn't great once they were booted out.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 
