Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I see China and Russia in a different light. Trade and support for nations like those can be done if we at the same time are putting pressures on them for improvements for continued or increased levels of support. But it has to be real pressures.
Giving 500 million to the nation and 79 million to the torturing agencies themselves and at the same time waiving the rules that required improvements in the country's human rights record falls squarely in the definition of: "supporting ... these monsters", and helping them become more of a monster.
Saddam never seemed to be a good guy. He started his career as an assassin and kicked off his first day as president by executing dozens of members of the Iraqi Parliament who opposed him, and video taped it for the world to see.
It is possible to stay 100% pure. You can give out some select money to people with questionable rights with the understanding that it comes with human rights, or other important issue strings. You don't give it to people who are Saddam/Hitler brutal and waive rules for human rights improvements.
You also build an international coalition (with a president who hasn't pissed off most of the developed world) of industrialized nations who will draft rules and regulations to further this goal along and ostracise any industrialized nation that does not follow suit.
When you do something like this, and I firmly believe most of the civilized world would want something like this, then no one is burdened by going it alone. This way one nation couldn't skip a handicap and deal with a repressive regime to enrich themselves at the expense of people
|
The problem is, that without this "support" you will have a rogue nation with nuclear weapons looking for money that has cultural/physical links with nations that, if not directly supporting terrorists, have underlying popular support for attacks against the US.
The deal with China is far more economic in nature and I see that as being worse. Basically, we will look the other way based on economic interests. With Uzbekistan it seems to be more of a we'll look the other way for security reasons.
Let's say worst came to worst and the world community decided that Uzbekistan had to be invaded to remove the leaders from power. Certainly we have learned that the borders could not be adequately secured to prevent the movement of people or weapons. This would mean that world safety could be compromised as nukes are transported out of the country. I'm not so sure other countries would accept this risk.