What are the boundaries of interference in a country's internal affairs

34 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2010-10-18 11:30

Sean in Ottawa

I have seen on Babble quite a few discussions about this in the context of a specific examples but I am hoping we can address it outside of that more as a principle.

At times in the international forum we have a person speaking about something happening in a particular country and then others will come along and debate whether they even have a right to express those opinions, as if the expression of opinions is illegitimate and an interference in itself. On the other hand we define ourselves as not United States but have no trouble saying what we wish about that country and its internal as well as external politics. As well we accept and encourage other countries to express opinions about what goes on in Canada.

I would like to address this apparent inconsistency with some principles that reflect the biases I have (as we all have biases). As a former publisher, expression is key to the assertion of most other freedoms in my view.

I also believe that the variety of individuals and groups deserve to be part of the conversation, to be acknowledged and to some degree that means discussed, talked to and actively heard as well as just listened to. This is in part an understanding of what it means to be in a wider diverse society that goes beyond tolerance and towards active engagement.

I don't believe it is respectful to discourage honest thought about others out of some deferential idea that only they can speak of themselves-- was it not Robbie Burns who said "give us the gift to see us as others see us"? That gift may not be a right but to deny it, I believe is a violation-- in other words you don't have to discuss someone else or another group but if someone else is, and doing so with respect, then this should not be discouraged.

Respect, is not about agreement and we don't have to like what others say. Respect is based on honesty and presumptions of equality and understandings of relativism. We can speak from our perspective of what is relevant to us, so long as we do not presume that this is important to our subject. We can understand and express our opinion, but we cannot presume that this opinion has any value beyond that. If our opinion is a preferred direction we want, then that too is not presumed to have weight or standing unless the subject gives it that weight. But the debate and expression is not either negative or to be disallowed.

When it comes to interference, our opinion cannot be backed up by coercion, force or pressure if it is to be respectful. This is why when nation states express opinions and back them up with sanctions, preferences or military power, we have interference. The expression by a state in another's affairs may constitute interference because of the presumed power and threat behind the statement. Not true when the statement comes from individuals having no such power.

The same rules should apply to all subjects (if we are speaking of countries then the same rules apply to all)-- it should not be a popularity contest where we reward favour based on what seems best to us because respect is a principle not something that is given to some and not others.

Therefore I do not think there is anything wrong with people here responding and reacting with words to the internal affairs of others so long as no force is brought to those words and no presumptions are made about the value of those opinions. And of course so long as the speaker is also listening. We should equally be able to discuss in a place like this, the internal affairs of countries such as Iraq or China or the United States or any other country especially given that the opinions here have no force behind them in the context they are presented here. We should also expect that if interested others will do the same with Canada and we should respect them for it and hear them out.

We should not have massive do not touch subjects except when it comes to expressions of hate and knowing prejudice. Where prejudice is inadvertent then it is through discussion that we can recognize it and deal with it not by an apparent politically correct pressure to not have a conversation on a given topic at all.

Since there is widespread acceptance that Canada is facing now more human rights issues than it has for some time, I would hate to see us move away from discussing human rights in all contexts, here and in other countries. And we can hope that others in other places, with the gift of distance, will also discuss Canada and inform us from their perspectives if we want to hear it. (And if we do not want to hear it it is our choice not to listen but it is not our choice to presume the conversation ought not to exist.)

I don't want to go from an imperialist position of assumptions that others need to hear and follow our opinions to a shutting down of reflection and opinion about others given in a respectful way because that is imposing isolation. And I would not want others to hold back based on this signal.

It is interesting to note, at least from my experience, I have never heard any person associated with any group or nation that they do not want to be discussed. To the contrary, they only ask for respect and a willingness to learn, to recognize and debate biases and hear responses.

So I propose we accept that non-interference does not mean non-discussion and respect does not mean automatic acceptance and agreement. Respect is essential but it is more subtle than that.

Anyway, I hope some find this discussion interesting and I would be interested in what others have to say on this having both asked the question and provided my viewpoint.

Mon, 2010-10-18 18:44

6079_Smith_W

So to throw a practical example out there, was the boycott of South Africa to end apartheid just?

I realize that South Africa did attack its neighbours, but the boycott was tied to an internal policy.

Mon, 2010-10-18 20:28

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

The international boycott against South Africa was more akin to conducting a boycott against a corporation that the public perceives to be doing harm of some kind, be it WalMart, Monsanto or BP. Boycott is meant to put pressure on the government or organization to stop policies and actions they condemn.

Political interference in internal affairs is quite a different matter. In a corporate setting, that would mean enabling a board of director candidate to destroy corporate policies and actions from within by assisting in their acquiring a position of power or tampering with Board of Director election results to call into doubt who was elected. Such kind of manouvering in a corporate setting would be considered unethical.

When foreign organizations representing a foreign government's wishes meddles with internal politics by funding splinter groups and/or specific candidates, supporting political coups, setting up propaganda press or disseminating false information about election results, that is a completely different thing than an open and transparent boycott.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is only slightly more transparent than the CIA. Their purpose is to destabilize countries the US government deems problematic and to shape internal policies of fledgling democracies.

From Source Watch:

Covert embedded reporters

Several articles about the political process in Haiti, Iraq, and the Palestinian-occupied territories have appeared in The New York Times, NPR, and other mainstream US media. The impression is given that the articles are from bona fide journalists, but it transpires that several of them are paid by the NED or its affiliated organizations. The case of Regine Alexandre is particularly interesting. She wrote articles for the New York Times, AP, and commented on NPR. It transpires that she is on the NED payroll, and the NED confirmed this fact. However, when confronted with this information both the NYT and NPR failed to respond or take this seriously.

Source: Anthony Fenton and Dennis Bernstein, "AP reporter RéGINE is wearing two hats," Haiti Action.net, December 29, 2005.

Conducting polls

NED (or its satellite organizations) has been active in conducting election exit polls in Serbia, Ukraine, Venezuela. These results were used on occasion to cast doubt on the actual election results, and thus deligitimize the winner of the election, and thus create pressure for an election re-run. [7]

In December 2004, the NED-association organization International Republican Institute conducted a survey in Iraq to determine the popular intent to vote. It found that 75% of Iraqis would opt to vote, thus lending some legitimacy to the electoral exercise. However, IRI didn't poll the key cities where the insurgency is strong, i.e., Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul. [8] Such surveys lend legitimacy to so-called demonstration elections, and discredit those opposed to the elections.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democracy

Here is an interesting article of how NED was involved in trying to overthrow the Chavez government:

[T]he US Embassy was compelled after the coup to declare as a "myth" the notion that "the US government, through organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, financed coup efforts." For months before the coup, Americans-including US government officials and officials of NED and its core grantees-were in contact with Venezuelans and political parties that became involved or possibly involved with the coup. This has provided Latin Americans cause to wonder if the United States is continuing its tradition of underhandedly meddling in the affairs of its neighbors to the south. And these contacts have prompted some, though not much, official probing in Washington. The issue is not only whether the United States in advance OK'd this particular coup (of which there is little evidence) or tried to help it once it occurred (of which there is more evidence). But did discussions between Americans and Chavez foes-such as those involving NED- encourage or embolden the coup-makers and their supporters? Give them reason to believe the United States would not protest should they move against Chavez in an unconstitutional manner? Much of the two-day coup remains shrouded in confusion. (It came and went so quickly: Carmona fled office the day after he seized power, once several military units announced they opposed the military coup, whereupon Chavez was returned to his office.) But enough questions linger about US actions in Venezuela to warrant a good look.
Consider some NED activities there. When Consorcio Justicia began to assemble the pro-democracy conferences, it approached the two main opponents of Chavez-Carmona and his Fedecamaras, as well as the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), the leading anti-Chavez labor union-according to documents obtained from NED under a Freedom of Information Act request. Christopher Sabatini, NED's senior program officer for Latin America, says, "The idea was that the conferences (which were to include Chavistas) would be able to define a consensus-based policy agenda" for the entire country. But certainly NED's core grantees were trying to beef up Venezuelan organizations challenging Chavez. The AFL-CIO, for example, was working (seemingly laudably) to bolster and democratize the CTV, which Chavez had been trying to intimidate and infiltrate. The International Republican Institute was training several parties that opposed Chavez. At one session, Mike Collins, a former GOP press secretary, taught party leaders how to mount photo-ops; at another he suggested to Caracas Mayor Alfredo Pena, a prominent Chavez foe, how he "could soften his aggressive image in order to appeal to a wider range of voters," according to an IRI report. (Human Rights Watch found that at least two members of the police force controlled by Pena-now Chavez's primary rival- fired weapons during the April 11 melee.) The question, then, is, since it was not explicit US policy to call for Chavez's ouster- though his departure from office was desired by the Bush Administration, which detested his oil sales to Cuba and close ties to Iraq, lran and Libya-should US taxpayer dollars have gone to groups working to unseat Chavez, even through legitimate means?
Moreover, NED and its grantees helped organizations that may have been represented in the coup government. When Carmona unveiled his Cabinet on the morning of April 12-hours after he was placed in power by the military at 5 AM-his junta included a leading official from COPEI, the Christian Democrat party, and one from Primero Justicia, a new party. TRI had provided assistance to both. Carmona also named a member of the CTV board as minister of planning, even though he was not a recognized leader of the union. And when Carmona assumed power in the presidential palace, a leading CTV figure was supposedly nearby-though his whereabouts and his role have been subjects of debate. The CTV did denounce Carmona-but not until Carmona, on the afternoon of April 12, announced his decree to shutter the National Assembly and the Supreme Court. It's not easy to determine whether Carmona's Cabinet appointees were acting on behalf of their parties or freelancing. And as one current Venezuelan official says, "The appointees were never sworn in as ministers, so they can claim they did not approve of Carmona's decree."
On April 12 Carmona also said he was establishing an advisory council for his government. But he did not name the several dozen members of this group. After the coup, the Chavez government maintained that it found a list of council members. The roster supposedly included leading officials of COPEI, Primero Justicia and the CTV, including CTV head Carlos Ortega-all of whom had been in touch with and/or received assistance from NED or its core grantees. This document, if accurate, raises the prospect that recipients of NED assistance, when the crunch arrived, were more interested in overthrowing Chavez than adhering to the democratic process' Asked whether it might be troubling if political figures who worked with NED and its grantees had agreed to assist the coup, NED's Sabatini said, "It's important to remember that these are independent groups, reacting-on their own-to their very difficult political environment. The NED's programs with the groups...were very specific programs of technical assistance and training.... It's also important to remember that these groups (when they were named to the Cabinet or to the advisory council) were acting under the belief that Chavez had resigned-as had been announced on TV." But according to post-coup news reports, Chavez actually refused to submit his resignation. And, as Venezuelan human rights outfits argued while the coup was in progress, Carmona's military-installed government was unconstitutional, whether or not Chavez had resigned.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Our_Gang_Venezuela.html

The UN is far from perfect and could use some reform, but in my opinion it is the best vehicle to advance changes in individual member states that safe gaurd human rights. I also believe we should be more responsive to organic opposition organizations within troubled nations such as Afghanistan's RAWA group. We can support them individually or through our foreigh aid policies. They are genuine civil society NGOs that have not been artificially created, manipulated or enabled by foreign government or corporate interests.

Mon, 2010-10-18 21:02

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So to throw a practical example out there, was the boycott of South Africa to end apartheid just?

I realize that South Africa did attack its neighbours, but the boycott was tied to an internal policy.

Does Beijing have an apartheid policy?

Western governments actually paid lip service when condemning S. African apartheid. No matter how many times various countries prevented diplomatic exchanges with S Africa, and no matter how many times their athletes were prevented from participating in sporting events, and no matter how many times our politicians puffed up their chests and condemned apartheid for the sake of scoring political points at home, South African apartheid continued. The US and a certain Canadian even helped the South African army and Savimbi and UNITA during the dirty war years.

But then a group of religious types and individuals realized that the isolationist policies weren't working to effect any change in South Africa. Trade union leaders, and university endowment boards and pension fund management types began thinking about socially responsible investing. Today it's a big idea that got started in the late 1980s or so. By the time apartheid was ended, there were $650 billion in investment funds around the world refusing to invest in South Africa. When he was released from prison, Nelson Mandela was asked if thought the investment boycott had anything to do with ending apartheid. His reply was, "Oh, there is no doubt."

Socially responsible investing is considered a significant force for progressive change today. I don't know about China though. I think there are too many corporations making money in China to create any momentum for change on this front. Political hawks in the US rail on about how China is manipulating currency, this that and the other thing. But the bottom line is that US and other corporations are happy with China in general. They make a lot of money in China even if Beijing does hold all that US debt and proceeding to transform the IMF's and Washington's neoliberal agenda for the third world into the Beijing consensus. They aren't playing by the west's rules very well in that regard. And there are many people in the west who buy Walmart and other stuff because of the lower prices. South Africa didn't do much for the working poor in the west by comparison. I don't know about China.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/out-and-about/china]Wilf Day traveled all over China[/url]. Wilf gave us a pretty good idea of what China is like.

Mon, 2010-10-18 22:39

6079_Smith_W

Are you sure it's not interference, Laine? The object of the boycott was to pressure the countryto change its social and political system in a fairly major way. I should add, I had no problem with the boycott, and supported it.

(edit)

I think it is also important to remember that the most powerful forces in the world do not feel bound by any such rules, and while I think there are fair limits, those limits are obviously going to be different for interference which I support than they are for interference which I consider to be negative.

And of course it depends what it is. There's a difference between the work of Amnesty International, Charles deGaulle's declaration in Quebec, Radio Free Berlin, bankrolling opposition parties, and the Chilean coup.

And like most things here and elsewhere, we're not going to nail this down to one set of rules.

Mon, 2010-10-18 22:46

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

A boycott is an honest and open condemnation of policies and actions you disapprove of, be it a government or corporation. It is a collective voice of opinion. It's very different from clandestine manipulation of political events.

How would you feel if NED was funding Harper and his gang and equipping them with slanted media so that they could ensure power?

Mon, 2010-10-18 23:09

Fidel

laine lowe wrote:
How would you feel if NED was funding Harper and his gang and equipping them with slanted media so that they could ensure power?

You mean like when our stooges attend secret NAU meetings in Banf with US Government and Military officials and corporate execs etc? And then independent media have to rummage around to find a [url=http://pesn.com/2006/09/29/9500242_NorthAmericanUnion_and_energy/NAU_Ban... of those in attendance[/url] at these sordid kinds of gatherings closed to the public.

Mon, 2010-10-18 23:12

Unionist

Laine, this thread, while possibly well-intentioned, can't go anywhere. It looks for definitions and forms, irrespective of content. It wants to define "interference" irrespective of distinguishing between oppressor and oppressed. It comes from a comfortable place - the kind where, once you justify the BDS movement against apartheid South Africa or Israel, will then ask: "So how is that different from the U.S. embargo of Cuba?" At bottom, it's not suitable for a discussion between allies. Allies want to know how to defeat the enemy, how to secure peace and justice, how to ensure the sovereignty and agency of the oppressed.

Mon, 2010-10-18 23:21

6079_Smith_W

@ laine lowe

No, covert and open action are not the same, but they are both different forms of interference.

And the Conservatives already have powerful backers and a slanted media behind them

@ Unionist

Agreed, as I said above, and there are number of things other than interference that we might have a range of definitions for.

Mon, 2010-10-18 23:34

#10

siamdave

A very thorny issue, not without impoirtance, but also difficult to resolve, mainly because of the dishonesty of predatory neocon governments, who simply lie about things they want or don't want to do. That is to say, we might decide that in certain circumstances intervention is acceptable (somebody really should have prevented the Rwandan genocide, I don't think many would argue with that). But - then you will have somebody like, oh say the guys south of us, simply lying and saying that based on exactly the same principles, they are going to invade somebody they don't like to 'bring the poor natives Democracy!'. and so on.

What I see as perhaps achievable is simply brining Democracy to our own country some day. Slim chance, admittedly, but creating a true Social Democratic state where all citizens are equal and well-treated, and high level predators well-controlled, would be a significant advance in human civilisation. Dream on davy!

Tue, 2010-10-19 03:35

#11

Fidel

[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/NED/NED-EmpiresNewClothes.html]Ciment and Ness[/url] on the NED:

Quote:
Ultimately, with the NED, Washington sets a double standard for itself and everybody else. In 1997, congressional opponents of the Clinton administration expressed outrage over foreign-specifically, Chinese-interference in U.S. elections, a story picked up and played repeatedly by the media. Eventually, the investigation was dropped for fear it would gore too many bulls on both sides of the aisle. But imagine if the Chinese had gone further: openly funding congressional candidates, researching low-voter turnout and America's antiquated voter registration system, infiltrating trade unions, sponsoring conferences in Washington supporting groups critical of the U.S. government and actively promoting the efficacy of Chinese-style state-run enterprises. Imagine the NED.

Tue, 2010-10-19 11:30

#12

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Nice catch, Fidel.

Tue, 2010-10-19 11:50

#13

Unionist

[url=http://www.nationalpost.com/news/China+wooing+politicians+with+gifts+wom... wooing Canadian politicians with gifts and women, Tory MP alleges[/url]

Let's say these charges were true. There might be a prima facie case of bribery, or worse, under the Criminal Code followed by charges, conviction, and imprisonment.

Prison. Just like Mr. Liu.

Only in Canada's case, locking up the culprits would constitute safeguarding of the integrity of our free and democratic way of life, as well as upholding the sanctity of the rule of law.

Tue, 2010-10-19 12:22

#14

Snert

Quote:
At times in the international forum we have a person speaking about something happening in a particular country and then others will come along and debate whether they even have a right to express those opinions, as if the expression of opinions is illegitimate and an interference in itself.

Indeed. It's always funny, on a "discussion board", seeing participants arguing against discussion. But I think that what you describe is just distraction. "Let's not discuss Cuba's human rights history, since we're not Cubans and it's none of our beeswax. Let's discuss Israel's instead!"

Tue, 2010-10-19 12:32

#15

Unionist

The inability to distinguish between oppressor and oppressed is unfortunately an incurable condition.

Tue, 2010-10-19 12:51

#16

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:
The inability to distinguish between oppressor and oppressed is unfortunately an incurable condition.

I wouldn't say it's incurable, but I agree it can be a chronic condition.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0914/Have-a-problem-with....

There's a link in that article to the People's Daily site asking for opinions.

The bit about blaming local politicians is interesting because it parallels the feeling of many during the French Revolution, who weren't fighting to get rid of the king, but rather the bureaucrats who ran much of the government. They also had a foreign menace to blame, embodied by the queen.

Interesting too, that that is another revolution which turned to terror when the Committee for Public safety started seeing foreign influence behind every grievance and difference of opinion with the official line.

Tue, 2010-10-19 13:13

#17

George Victor

Unionist wrote:The inability to distinguish between oppressor and oppressed is unfortunately an incurable condition."

6079 : "I wouldn't say it's incurable, but I agree it can be a chronic condition."

I'd say the befuddlement will all clear up like Alice's visit to Wonderland, in the case of China, when people awake to the fact that it has assumed suzerainty over the area from east Africa to the boundaries of the U.S.bases in the Pacific. Size matters.

Tue, 2010-10-19 13:32

#18

bagkitty

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So to throw a practical example out there, was the boycott of South Africa to end apartheid just?

I realize that South Africa did attack its neighbours, but the boycott was tied to an internal policy.

6079_Smith_W:

Since the boycott was being called for by both the ANC and PAC, I don't really see how it could be characterized as interference.

Tue, 2010-10-19 13:40

#19

Bacchus

bagkitty wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So to throw a practical example out there, was the boycott of South Africa to end apartheid just?

I realize that South Africa did attack its neighbours, but the boycott was tied to an internal policy.

6079_Smith_W:

Since the boycott was being called for by both the ANC and PAC, I don't really see how it could be characterized as interference.

Hmm so when some section of the population calls for it, it isn't interference? So Iraq and Afghanistan were not interference?

Ah the problems with generalities, they can be applied equally by us and our opponents

Tue, 2010-10-19 13:47

#20

bagkitty

Well, I would characterize the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan to be more like the situation in Cuba... where it was an embargo as opposed to a boycott - called for by the "exile" community and seized on by hostile state actors. I don't remember any armed forces enforcing the South African boycott campaign...

Tue, 2010-10-19 13:58

#21

George Victor

One had to give up Paarl Olorosa Cream about the same time one gave up California grapes.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:01

#22

6079_Smith_W

...and now Red Stripe.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:02

#23

Rikardo

I'm not sure the boycott of South African products was that important. The South Africans were already on track to end apartheid But it gave a sense of triumph to Western liberal interventionists like Richard Goldstone. Then came the breakup of Yugoslavia still seen as victory for intervention and an example for General Dallaire who wants our military to remain in Afghanistan as councillors, like the US began in Vietnam.

Around 2000 there was the Gareth Evans commission on Intervention, a very Canadian creation, with two Canadians, one being Michael Ignatieff. And then R2P, Responsibilty to Protect. Dallaire was on SRC, Monday going on about W2I, Will to Intervene dreamed up by some Frank Chalk ? at Concordia. To me this is all White Man's Burden. If Wilson had stayed out of WW1 in 1917, as he had promised, several traumatic events (WW2, etc) might not have occured.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:15

#24

Pogo

I think the first point has to be that requests have to be generated internally. Any outside support diminishes the authenticity and therefore the request needs more strength.

In SA's example the boycott request came from the ANC and from my limited knowledge it was very much an internal decision (probably with some advice from external supporters).

On the other hand in Afghanistan the ruling group has multiple connections to foreign powers. The foreign powers were in the country prior to asking permission and they control many of the levers of power and influence. For me it would take an overwhelming majority (lets say 90% with a fair question in an unbiased atmosphere) of the Afghan people to justify the claim that the military presence is supported and requested.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:20

#25

Bacchus

But the ANC would not have had anywhere near that. And in Iraq it was not the elites in power asking for the intervention.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:23

#26

6079_Smith_W

So some people here think having someone inside the country calling for intervention justifies it.

I think this thread is going to wind up with a bad case of split ends before long, because I think for most of us it really comes down to whether we support the interference or not. It is probably best to just admit that and forget about trying to draw up some rule book.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:27

#27

Pogo

Bacchus wrote:

But the ANC would not have had anywhere near that. And in Iraq it was not the elites in power asking for the intervention.

That is my point. The SA example is almost a text-book example of where external support (of the nature requested) is justified, while Afghanistan or Iraq have none of the prerequisites.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:27

#28

Caissa

Konrad Heinlein would fit that definition in the Sudetenland.

I think Unionist is correct when he reduces this to recognizing who are our friends and who is the enemy.

Tue, 2010-10-19 14:39

#29

Bacchus

Pogo wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

But the ANC would not have had anywhere near that. And in Iraq it was not the elites in power asking for the intervention.

That is my point. The SA example is almost a text-book example of where external support (of the nature requested) is justified, while Afghanistan or Iraq have none of the prerequisites.

So if the people in Iraq who called for intervention had only call for economic boycott to stop torture and oppression, that would have been ok? And Im not baiting you, I truly don't see the difference. For me I can just pick who's intervention I would prefer and who's I would not. I cannot use a 'rule' or 'guideline' because there will always be opposite examples to show (like the Sudentanland or Iraq, etc etc)

Tue, 2010-10-19 15:12

#30

6079_Smith_W

Caissa wrote:

Konrad Heinlein would fit that definition in the Sudetenland.

I think Unionist is correct when he reduces this to recognizing who are our friends and who is the enemy.

Exactly, but sometimes "friend" and "enemy" are not exactly clear terms either, and even cloudier when you are trying to interpret an action by a third party in relation to that friend or enemy.

(edit)

All of these situations involve applying pressure in some way. if you support the action or the people you are going ot look for a way to justify it. If you disagree then you are going to look for some way to cry foul.

Tue, 2010-10-19 16:43

#31

Pogo

I think the tactics (invasion/boycott) are a big part of it. The boycott was important in that it did not rely on one nation to take the lead, particularly if the nation has a vested interest in creating change. Also the ANC was truly a representative body that had significant legitimacy. In Iraq there wasn't the strength of voice nor was the appeal to the general international community, but rather toward a couple of interested parties (I seem to remember George Bush being called upon for help). The exception may be the Kurds (will have to think about and get back to you in non-work hours).

Tue, 2010-10-19 16:56

#32

Bacchus

Yes but it was thousands of people, any that weren't in charge essentially, from the Kurds to the Sunnis (I think they were the not Hussein ones) whereas the ANC was a indepdance/terrorist/revolutionary group. They had no right to speak on behalf of everyone as does no single group in afghanistan or iraq. In fact, according to your reasoning on the ANC, we should be interfering on behalf of the Taliban.

You are this way becase you support the struggle the ANC went through, regardless of some of their tactics and crimes. Just like you don't support the invasion of Iraq and afghanistan. Nothing wrong with that, just means you cant apply a 'rule' to interference. Nor will you ever since there will always be examples you dont want used (like Hitler invading Austria)

I should add that most of my family fought Hitler, I supported the boycot on SA, was against the invasion of Iraq (the second one, not the first) and am conflicted on afghanistans original invasion but think we should all be out of it now (and should have years ago)

Wed, 2010-10-20 11:37

#33

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So some people here think having someone inside the country calling for intervention justifies it.

I think this thread is going to wind up with a bad case of split ends before long, because I think for most of us it really comes down to whether we support the interference or not. It is probably best to just admit that and forget about trying to draw up some rule book.

Perhaps this is the only conclusion we can come to -- but at least that is not the same as having people call out and say others are being imperialist just for making observations backed up by only personal conviction and opinion.

I can accept then that some forms of interference are acceptable. The questions are the motives, the benefits, the purpose and respect for the people there. I don't like the absolute that no interference of any kind is okay any more than I would accept that if I passed some thugs beating up on a family member of theirs.

Trouble is most of the political interference in the world is sourced in the interests of the interfering country and frequently this is done with a tremendous amount of ignorance in the place being interfered with. If we came out of this thread opposing this and not all forms of interference-- even those no more than an opinion of an individual on a forum such as this in this country.

I started this thread hoping to oppose the idea that commentary needs to rejected if it is about anyone other than ourselves or those we deem deserving of negative comment such as the US. It is worthy for all circumstances to be examined-- even if one result of the discussion is a greater understanding of what is happening ehre through the examination of the experiences of others.

Wed, 2010-10-20 13:07

#34

6079_Smith_W

@ Sean in Ottawa

Agreed, and agreed.

I think it would be interesting to look at the broader issue, rather than just make this a barely-veiled continuation of the Nobel prize thread. Still I know that is the elephant in the room.

Like most of us, I do think there are limits, and one sees them most clearly in the case of people fighting for causes we support resorting to tactics we do not (for me, the Red Stripe boycott I mentioned is one).

Except in very clear cases like that, personal bias is always going to have an effect on what is considered acceptable.

And again, the issue is clouded by the fact that many, in particular the rich and powerful, usually don't recognize any rules of fairness.