Should the EU topple foreign leaders?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:58:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should the EU topple foreign leaders?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 22

Author Topic: Should the EU topple foreign leaders?  (Read 977 times)
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 29, 2015, 08:00:08 AM »

A few years ago I would have laughed this off, but the refugee crisis has made this more of a dilemma. Africa has some terrible tyrants and Europe can not really allow countries to keep collapsing, so despite all the bagage of European imperialism this may become necessary. Even if it would alienate our relations to the AU and be a bloody mess (literally).

This strategy is of course only feasible if there is an alternative to the regime and would require beefing up our military and establishing a command structure.

Ideally doing it via an African partner (neighboring country or rebel group) would be the way to go.

Eritrea would seem to be the obvious test case (as tricky as it is). Sudan is another candidate.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2015, 09:33:03 AM »

If we really wanted to help the third world of COURSE we would topple foreign leaders.  But that's hard, and involves people (the military) and things (weapons/violence) we hate.  I've mentioned here a few times that the "good" countries should get together, make a list of the worst places on Earth, do some studies to see if we can fix the top one for a reasonable amount of blood and coin, and then do it if feasible.  Then move on to number 2.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

I understand why we don't, we have a HORRIBLE tract record of this.  Even when we mean well (and we almost never do) we still seem to screw it up more often than not.  Some cultures might even be lost causes and never worth the effort...then what?  Wall 'em up so the damage they do to their neighbors and the world is lessened?  A lot people are going to have problems with that.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2015, 09:42:16 AM »
« Edited: August 29, 2015, 11:43:31 AM by DavidB. »

The EU shouldn't, but EU countries should.

We won't, though. Instead, we will build nice houses for everybody who wants to live here.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2015, 09:47:04 AM »
« Edited: August 29, 2015, 09:51:50 AM by mencken »

If we really wanted to help the third world of COURSE we would topple foreign leaders.  But that's hard, and involves people (the military) and things (weapons/violence) we hate.  I've mentioned here a few times that the "good" countries should get together, make a list of the worst places on Earth, do some studies to see if we can fix the top one for a reasonable amount of blood and coin, and then do it if feasible.  Then move on to number 2.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

I understand why we don't, we have a HORRIBLE tract record of this.  Even when we mean well (and we almost never do) we still seem to screw it up more often than not.  Some cultures might even be lost causes and never worth the effort...then what?  Wall 'em up so the damage they do to their neighbors and the world is lessened?  A lot people are going to have problems with that.

All well and good assuming you can clone 50 Lee Kwan Yews rather than 50 Nouri al-Malikis. I am not particularly optimistic about this, considering the British basically performed your idea in the 19th century, yet most of their empire reverted back to its current state once they left. Granted its current state, while atrocious, is still an improvement over their prior state, so maybe if the Western nations nation-build for another five or six hundred years they will achieve the living standards we enjoy today (and let's just not mention the opportunity cost of spending so much money trying to make first-world nations out of third-world human capital).
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2015, 09:54:05 AM »

You think they meant well and were not just exploiting?  I'm pretty sure they didn't go into China to save the Chinese from themselves, I was under the impression they just wanted cheap tea.


I'm not saying you're wrong, you're probably right, we probably would screw it up, but it wouldn't HAVE to be a screw up.  And the more we did it, ideally, the better we'd get at it.  And, again, ideally, after you remove the first several asshats from power, the rest will probably at least play along with us instead of getting killed/imprisoned.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2015, 11:40:05 AM »

Yes, but that would require the EU actually having a common diplomacy.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2015, 12:28:24 PM »

Hasn't it already done that in Greece?
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2015, 01:11:03 PM »

No. The European track record for effective regime change within the past 100 years, or even the past 20, is astonishingly horrible.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2015, 01:13:28 PM »

No. The European track record for effective regime change within the past 100 years, or even the past 20, is astonishingly horrible.

Not really relevant in this new context.

(if you think it is please elaborate)
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2015, 01:28:37 PM »

Bringing back colonialism would be the best way to solve the refugee issue while maintaining Europe's racial purity, yes.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2015, 01:43:13 PM »

Bringing back colonialism would be the best way to solve the refugee issue while maintaining Europe's racial purity, yes.

Snarky, but who else should remove the worst tyrants? AU is still to a large degree a dictators club where regime change is a taboo. China is the dictators sponsor and the US has no interest in this.

Surely millions of Eritreans on the run - or in exile in Europe - is not a desirable outcome?

Your so called "racial purity" just means a Europe populated mainly by Europeans. What is wrong with that?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2015, 02:08:13 PM »

Surely the effects of toppling nasties -  Jammeh, Sisi, al-Bashir, Afwerki, Bouteflika etc. - would be a short-term increase in migration? Like the whole reason the current crisis is foregrounded at the moment is because the instability in Libya etc. forced the whole affair northwards.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2015, 02:31:30 PM »

Surely the effects of toppling nasties -  Jammeh, Sisi, al-Bashir, Afwerki, Bouteflika etc. - would be a short-term increase in migration? Like the whole reason the current crisis is foregrounded at the moment is because the instability in Libya etc. forced the whole affair northwards.

Depends how quickly you can do it and whether stability can be established afterwards. It would not be possible in a country the size of Egypt, but might be worth considering in some cases. 10 countries produce 77% of the worlds refugees. If you can stop 1-2 that is already a big gain.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2015, 02:52:57 PM »

Are you talking some kind of shady CIA style affairs (covertly funding opposition to Al-Bashir et al) or a Libya-style intervention or even an Iraqi-style invasion?

Because, even I, an impractical EUtopian; doubt the EU has it together to pull that off logistically (let alone legally, morally and without causing some horrendous consequences).
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2015, 03:02:35 PM »

Reposting my table of top refugee producing countries here. A number of them are irrelevant in this context, either because they do not affect Europe, are too large/strong, or because toppling the regime would not increase the likelyhood of peace and stability (some are failed states like Somalia).

On December 31, 2014 the following 13 countries had produced the most refugees, with the Top 3 accounting for 53% and Top 10 for 77%.

Syria 3,9 mio.
Afghanistan 2,6 mio. (2,45 in Pakistan and Iran)
Somalia 1,1 mio.
Sudan 649.000
South Sudan 616.000 (up more than 500.000)
DRC 517.000
Burma 479.000
CAR 412.000 (up 260.000)
Iraq 370.000
Eritrea 363.000 (but has almost doubled since)
Colombia 360.000
Pakistan 284.000 (mainly to Afghanistan, only place to go)
Ukraine 271.000 (mainly Russia)

The ones in bold are the ones that affects Europe substantially.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2015, 03:10:40 PM »

Are you talking some kind of shady CIA style affairs (covertly funding opposition to Al-Bashir et al) or a Libya-style intervention or even an Iraqi-style invasion?

Because, even I, an impractical EUtopian; doubt the EU has it together to pull that off logistically (let alone legally, morally and without causing some horrendous consequences).

Could be all of them, whatever works. But preferably as low key as possible.

Logistics would need to be developed. With "EU" I do not necessarily mean the union itself, but the member countries - or a group of them.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2015, 03:14:12 PM »

I didn't know Colombia produced so many refugees. I thought that country was in a position of relative stability compared to when Escobar ran wild.

Anyway CAR, DRC, and the like will remain basket-cases even if you remove the figureheads, of course.

Even in the most feasible States - Erirea and Sudan - it would require long, agonising and almost certainly fruitless nation-building, especially if the brief is to reduce migration.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2015, 03:53:48 PM »

I'm trying to find a place in your comments where you flesh out how a structure designed primarily as an economic collective can -- or should -- act with a foreign policy or with a military command, or why it should be given redundant tasks when most EU members are also NATO members. NATO has not been shy about regime change in the Middle East and Africa so far.

OK, sure, NATO is dominated by the US and pursues agendas favorable to it and not necessarily Europe as a whole (Afghanistan immediately comes to mind). But just as well, I can envision a EU military command completely dominated by France -- which pretty much openly pursues colonial-era policy in Africa already.

But the major reason why I mistrust this idea is because European foreign policy already -- and as always -- betrays a deep confusion about what their objectives should be. Nothing you've posted so far gives me any indication that it will be any different when done by the EU than what was done by the European countries individually.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2015, 04:05:35 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2015, 04:47:59 PM by politicus »

1) You did not elaborate on your previous comment like I asked you to. It was an odd sweeping generalization going back to 1915 and including a wide range of countries. But lets stick to the last, less weird part: What record of regime change in the last 20 years? And what countries doing said regime change? Is it France in Africa, or what are you referring to?

2) The US has no real interest in regime change in Africa, which (mostly) rules out NATO. I have no problem with NATO command structures being used if possible.

3) I am using "EU" as a description of the member countries, whether the organization itself should play a part is not central to me.

But the major reason why I mistrust this idea is because European foreign policy already -- and as always -- betrays a deep confusion about what their objectives should be. Nothing you've posted so far gives me any indication that it will be any different when done by the EU than what was done by the European countries individually.

4) Please explain what you mean by the bolded part and provide some context/examples. There has historically been no such thing as a "European" foreign policy, so how can you say this non-existing thing has always been confusing?
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2015, 04:44:09 PM »

There are cases like Libya where a comprehensive plan and deal after 2011 would have helped. Rather than spending billions in 2015 on fences, boats and migrant stuff we should have helped Libya in 2011.

However, I can't see any reason for the EU to say invade the Congo or Somalia
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2015, 04:45:29 PM »

But the major reason why I mistrust this idea is because European foreign policy already -- and as always -- betrays a deep confusion about what their objectives should be. Nothing you've posted so far gives me any indication that it will be any different when done by the EU than what was done by the European countries individually.

1) the US has no real interest in regime change in Africa, which (mostly) rules out NATO. I have no problem with NATO command structures being used if possible.

2) I am using "EU" as a description of the member countries, whether the organization itself should play a part is not central to me.

3) Again, explain what you mean by the bolded part and provide some context/examples. There has historically been no such thing as a "European" foreign policy, so how can you say this non-existing thing has been confusing?

If you listen to the complaints of our adversaries Russia and China, the West does indeed pursue a foreign policy that can be broadly characterized as "European," or at least favorable to western interests at the expense of some other objective. Britain and France are permanent UN security council members, they vote the same on practically all issues, and the other members of the EU have yet to state any real objections to their leadership either within the UN or outside it. They've formed the core of European foreign policy (outside the scope of the continent) since the days of the Entente, if not before, and I don't see that role changing at any time.

But beyond that, what I mean by confusion is this:

Do European countries (Britain and France, and the remaining EU countries) favor the stable rule of a dictator, or do they prefer the messiness that comes from "spreading democracy around"? Do they prefer the might of gunboat or dollar (euro) diplomacy, or do they prefer to stealthily seek influence through NGOs, covert operations, and cultural hegemony? In Africa and the Middle East western European countries do all of those things at the same time, to cross effects.

Russia would never be as daft to depose their tyrants in central Asia the way the US/UK/France (with no EU objections) deposed Qaddafi in Libya, because they all too well know what their alternative is.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2015, 04:57:52 PM »

There are cases like Libya where a comprehensive plan and deal after 2011 would have helped. Rather than spending billions in 2015 on fences, boats and migrant stuff we should have helped Libya in 2011.

However, I can't see any reason for the EU to say invade the Congo or Somalia

Those are failed states, not dictatorships. Different problem: lack of leadership (and government structures as such), not tyrannical leadership.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2015, 02:54:20 PM »

I'm opposed, which is somewhat ironic because I supported US doing it, and I'm a Euro federalist.

But the problem is how it in practice would work, EU lack a coherent policy of interventionism, instead we would have coalition lead by France and UK, which sometimes would push intervention based on their interest. UK and France interests are not the same as our other, neither are they especially humanitarian in nature. If it was up to UK and France we would have intervened in Syria; "Good" some of you think, but there was no way that would not have turned into a even bigger disaster than Syria are today, even Libya where we got rid of one of the most horrible pierces of human garbage, which lack the religious diversity of Syria and have a massive potential income in their oil fields, the result have been less than stellar mildly said.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2015, 07:33:04 PM »

Aren't botched attempts to do this the reason we have a 'refugee crisis' at present?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 13 queries.