Why do we support countries that abuse human rights ?

Post Reply New Topic

I do know that democratic countries such as my own (the UK) supports authoritarian regimes around as Saudi Arabia and some extent China. I also remember finding out a while ago that to my horror that in 1994 when the Rwandan Genocide was going on the French were still sending arms to the militias that were carrying out the genocide. I seem to think we choose not to break off ties with some of the countries despite the abuses they carry out on their own peoples because it might end up leaving us isolated and cut us off from trade and so on. Would it cause damage it cut off ties with those countries. I seem to think that if my country's representative met another country's representative about the fact that it is concerned with human rights abuses happening the other's country they'll just tell us to stop meddling or interfering with their affairs.

Which country doesn't abuse human rights?

Seriously? EVERY country abuses human rights.

One word: money

My "we" doesn't include my country.

They do it because they're politicians and do politician things. They trick you into voting for them and then do what they and their friends want.

Obviously they would be against direct democracy, because then they can't do what they want anymore. They created systems by politicians for politicians, not by the people for the people.

Economic or geopolitical considerations, typically.

Well…exactly what do you want done better? What CAN these countries do better? And I don’t mean a Captain Obvious “just stop sending aid to countries who commit genocide.”

I have no problem with selling weapons to other countries, even potentially genocidal ones. Because, to be frank, you don’t really know who will become genocidal and who won’t. And…I don’t take genocide as objectively immoral by logical necessity, anyway. Japan in the course of WW2 became a suicide state for lack of a better term. If WW2 had been part of your world, it probably wouldn’t have bothered you that much that the US rained down nukes on them. That act might be labeled genocidal depending on how you look at it, intent versus reality. So it doesn’t make sense to go screaming at governments to stop committing genocide. If the effects of government action happen to be genocidal in nature, I want to know what the victims did to provoke retaliation on that scale. If the genocidal act is retaliatory or defensive, you really can’t blame a government for doing whatever it takes to protect itself and its citizens. If the result is genocide, so be it.

And no, I’m not advocating for genocide. I’m only exploring the logical possibility that a total commitment to destroying a country might reasonably be met with a response in kind. The plain fact is nations properly have the right to self-defense. So selling weapons for a nation to reasonably defend itself and causing the death of a group of people committed to their own self-destruction may technically count as genocide. I have no problem supporting a nation in the way of protecting itself.

Things I DO have a problem with: GIVING AWAY weapons el freebo. Make a secure loan to cover weapons, sure. Exchange currency, sure. But just handing weapons over and telling a foreign government to go have fun? Not cool. Trading/giving away weapons at the expense of defending one’s OWN domestic interests? Very bad. Outright getting involved in foreign conflicts that do not cross your own borders? ABSOLUTE WORST. And by that I mean boots on the ground.

I wouldn’t begrudge any American who cared enough about Ukraine the right to join forces with Ukraine and remove Russians from Ukrainian territory. But to send our own military units over there would be a terrible thing to do. I think sending weapons and equipment right now might be stretching things, but it’s better than sending troops. I happen to believe Ukraine is worth fighting for. Just not with OUR military.

If Russia launches a preemptive strike against the U.S., I would most likely change my mind.

I think people don’t worry too much about it because they don’t see it directly. Most people try not to think about it. Most people also try not to think about the deplorable living conditions of the animals that are raised for consumption.

They have something we want or need.

the Hindus of olde refer to our planet as a "hellworld." giving welfare to tyrants is one reason why.

Because abused human beings live in those countries.

There are three answers.

1) what do you mean by “we”?

2) what do you mean by “support”

3) what do you mean by “abuse human rights”?

Broadly, I think the question you’re trying to ask is “why do democratic, liberal Western governments maintain cordial relations with governments that do a variety of seriously bad things beyond those typical of a liberal Western government?”, correct?

You give the examples of Saudi Arabia and China. While I think those were just meant to be examples, they can both serve as examples.

Saudi Arabia is a large, populous, rich, militaristic, and stable country that makes up the bulk of the Arabic peninsula. It borders most countries in the region. Destabilising it would probably have consequences for its neighbours, as well as for supplies of oil and other, less-heralded natural resources. Its large geographic area would make governing it hard, its military strength would make fighting it harder than fighting the Iraqi army, its large population means any war would hurt a lot of people. Those same things also make it a useful ally, as it was in the Gulf War, and it would be if the West wanted to intervene in a neighbouring country. We would rather have it as our ally than scare it away to ally with Russia and/or China against us. Finally, it is a useful counterweight to Iran, which is somehow even worse, and has allied strongly with Russia.

China has the largest population and largest economy in the world, as well as the second strongest military and the third largest nuclear arsenal. We cannot reasonably overthrow the regime. However, in recent years the West has pivoted away from viewing China almost like India (getting richer, getting freer, a useful if unreliable partner) to viewing it more like Cold War Soviet Union (a potential existential threat which should be disengaged from as far as possible). China is now seen more as an adversary than as an ally. That said, it is too rich and too powerful to ignore completely.

Most human rights abusing countries are not as dramatic as those two. So let’s think about Eritrea. It has very little strategic value, and there is very little reason for other governments to fear it. It could hardly become less stable. So why don’t we intervene in Eritrea? For the very same reasons: it holds little strategic value and it is not a threat. Why would we send soldiers to die there? Sometimes humanitarian arguments will work (and they are personally arguments I would use!) but most governments aren’t going to listen to them unless they really get through to the public. After the Iraq War, there is very little appetite in the West for further military adventurism.