I read an article about the leader of a religious cult in Uganda who had led an army into raping, killing, and torturing other Ugandans, not to mention kidnapping to recruit new members. The international criminal court has charged him with war crimes and issued a warrant for his arrest. He claims he’s finished with what he’s doing, and he’ll surrender peacefully if he’s left alone, and apparently at least some of his victims are fine by that deal. It echoes an observation from Collapse, where natives of Rwanda accepted war as a population control measure.
Let me tie this into the situation in Thailand. Bloodless coup. Corrupt government ousted. Minor protests, but no Tianamen square. Broad condemnation from the West. In terms of outcome, it’s still too early to say whether something good will emerge from it. The coup leader has the backing of their king, and has promised from square one to turn things over to a civilian government.
My point here is maybe we don’t always know best. Sometimes I think imposing our values is fine. Stopping honor killings of women, say. Other times, I suspect not.
Gah?
What are you really saying? “Sometimes, universal values make sense, but.. yah know…”?
More clarity, please.
Re: Gah?
I’m saying that the imposition of values from outside is something I’m neutral on. In circumstances where it immediately protects the health and well being of others (say honor killings), I’m for it. When it has hypothetical and indirect value (all coups are bad. Especially the American revolution) I defer judgment. =)
Ah
So, universals about health and well-being make sense, but let circumstances dictate the nitty-gritty about who’s in power.
But what about things like “liberty” or “personal freedom”? That seems to fall pretty squarely under “well-being” to me, but would you say it’s of “hypothetical value” and let the Commies roll their tanks over the Tiananmen kids again?
Re: Ah
I’d say rolling tanks over people pretty directly impacts their wellbeing, wouldn’t you?
Yup
🙂
And sometimes it’s the ‘imposing’ that makes it wrong, regardless of how right it may be.
While I haven’t researched as much as I should, I have yet to hear any specific articulation as to what was wrong with the civilian Thai government. So far, I’ve just heard what’s on CNN, BBC World, and Deutsche Welle-TV. That’s largely been “bloodless military coup while the PM was in New York. civilian election within a year. vague accusations of corruption and lots of patriotic music on Thai TV”.
I’m quite willing to entertain that the coup was justified, but the burden of proof is on the military. Can you give me more insight?
Also, I don’t particularly care if the Rwandans accept war as population control. I don’t, and I’ll be an imperialist asshat and advocate my radical “shrapnel-free condom” methods until I die.
They just weren’t very effective, and were unpopular in the capital city. Still, the PM had much higher national approval ratings than say, Tony Blair, but you don’t see us having an military coup.
Actually, in Rwanda I got the impression it was mostly machetes, not so much shrapnel. That having been said, it’s one thing to issue moral condemnation from afar, it’s another thing entirely to go in and impose one’s views on others.
The Thai military does not understand the point of democracy. If you take over and oust the prime minister whenever you don’t like him, reinstate a new one, and then “return” it to democracy, then what you really have is a military dictatorship that is putting on a democratic face.
The Thai military needs to swear loyalty to the elected official, not to the king or to their general. Otherwise, it’s all just an illusion.
Quite. However ineffective the government was, it could and should have been dealt with by democratic means. By having a military coup, particularly for such relatively trivial reasons, totally undermines the democratic principle.
You know, I now get to interact with Ugandans here in Balad. They were hired to do security at gates, facilities, etc… Some of the most professional soldiers I have seen working with the Coalition.
Alot of them are veterans of the fight with the Lord’s Resistance Army, that you mention. About a month ago, the Ugandad government agreed to a truce with the LRA, and that seemed to make the Ugandans happy.
Although, from what I can tell, “Alleviate Poverty” is a bigger concern amoung Ugandans than “Stop the Decades Long Civil War”.
The greatest political quote I have ever heard:
“Every nation has the government it deserves.” -Joseph de Maistre
I wonder if the two problems might have a common cause…
What makes one set of morals more right than another?
Until someone actually addresses morals objectively, I’m not sure it’s as easy as it seems to say.