participation of foreign countries in protecting human rights of a country could be justified.
Debate Rounds (3)
First, I want to clarify one thing: For this debate, the exception that 'unless a country requests for help' should be disregarded. Thank you.
1. Foreign countries attempting to protect human rights in a certain country can backfire.
-Most of the time, when a country seems to be a dictatorship, authoritarian, or generally inhumane to its civilians, many other countries will immediately get together to request that country's leader to either step down or start a democracy. And most of the time, that leader/government/administration will refuse to do either choice, despite peace treaties, or discussions. The foreign countries are provoked by the refusal, the leader is adamant that he is not doing anything wrong and therefore will not easily give up his power. Thus, the foreign countries start sending over troops and weapons, the leader sends out his own troops, there is a war, millions of innocent people are killed, starve to death, perish. A country is ravaged. Is this not an example of violating human rights? Isn't a war just a brutal as protesters being tortured or murdered?
-In addition, here is a piece of evidence. According to the article "Mounting Libyan Death Toll From US-NATO Bombings" by Barry Grey on the World Socialist Web Site, it states, "The death toll in Libya from US, French and British air strikes continues to mount and promises to rise sharply...The escalating death and destruction being meted out by the US and its allies in Libya further exposes the lies that were used to justify the launching of the war five weeks ago." This also a clear example how foreign countries also destruct and kill innocent civilians in a country that they deem "authoritarian".
2. Just because foreign countries say a particular country is a dictatorship and that they are violating human rights, and accuse the leader of being a dictator does not mean it really is.
-Yes, there may be proof, evidence; your country may run a bunch of headlines stating how a certain leader killed a bunch of people, etc., etc., but that may be a way of your country justifying itself in starting a war with an "
authoritarian" country. There is always some bias in here. Do you really know if Bashar al-Assad is a dictator, if he is as evil as various countries make him to be? Do you really know if Gaddafi,Saddam Hussein, all of those accused dictators, were really that cruel? If you were one of their closest advisors, or a citizen of their country, then maybe yo would know, but if you are just an outsider, a foreigner to them, then no, you don't know. And you won't really know unless you really get to know them.
-The Huffington Post website states that Gaddafi, "In 1969, as a mere 27-year-old captain, he emerged as leader of a group of officers who overthrew the monarchy of King Idris. ....Gadhafi took undisputed power and became a symbol of anti-Western defiance in a Third World recently liberated from its European colonial rulers. During the 1970s, Gadhafi proceeded to transform the nation."
Gaddafi actually did some things for Libya. He must have been a pretty skillful leader, if at 27, he could form a group of supporters and overthrow an old leader. And if you read the quote again, it states, "anti-Western defiance". Furthermore, Libya is an nation run on oil, as the Huffington Post states [that Libya was], "
...then an oil power courted by the West..." Of course, the foreign countries who took part in Libya's revolution were mostly made up by France, Britain, and the U.S., Western powers, and they may or may not have seen the advantage of oil.
My last point is merely a defense for all those "dictators" and can be easily disregarded. If you were a supposed dictator of a supposed authoritarian country, and then a bunch of foreign countries believe they have the right to just invade into your country, start a war, and drop bombs, would you step aside. If you do, you'll probably be killed. (After all, Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein died, and if Assad is overthrown, he'll probably die too, right?) Are you willing to merely step aside, and allow these foreign countries to take control? And if you are faced by angry protesters, such as the Syrian Rebels, can you be sure they will not do all those authoritarian, inhuman things that you are accused of doing? What if they don't protect human rights at all, but also violate them, despite claims from other countries that they are a "legitimate government"?
Thank you and again, I apologize for such a long argument. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
In my point of view good person, bad person it quite doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone obeys by the rules and regulations put forward by the international community in order to protect human rights. Wasn't the great Gaddafi killed by his own people? It maybe true that he provided funds, free electricity and many more privileges to his citizens. But simultaneously, he supported mass terrorism, bomb attacks and sent assassins to kill his own Libyans who left the country for freedom. And yes... if we do not know whether he was bad? how do we say that he was good?
An organization like UN was appointed to protect human rights and resolve conflicts. Therefore, a country cannot go and blackmail another country and use its sources or chase away its ruler just because they want to. They should have solid reasons and strong evidence to do so.. And then everything is questioned in the UN summits and an actions are taken accordingly.
Whenever there was a dictator it has been evident in the past that he use his administrative powers to have his way. And the people cannot petition or complain because they will be complaining to the same ruler about his own wrong doings. At times like this, victims of these countries are compelled to talk to a higher authority, most probably the UNO (which is an organization combining many countries) Therefore, participation of foreign countries in human rights of a country could be justified because, at the end of the day we all are humans and it is common to everyone despite their colour, religion, gender or social origin.
-My opponent claims that when a certain country violates the rules and regulations of the international community, then foreign countries are allowed to participate in that country's affairs in order to protect/help its civilians and human rights. However, many foreign countries, armed with their reasons of dictatorship, violations of human rights, and authoritarian government, will invade the particular country, drop bombs, go on air raids, etc. They are also responsible for killing instead of protecting the civilians, just like what they accuse the dictator of the country doing.
-For an example, it states in the article -about the war in Libya, "Libya Intervention More Questionable in Rear View Mirror", (written April 5th, 2013 by Jim Lobe) on the Inter Press Service News Agency website, "As the civil war intensified " albeit inconclusively ..... however........ Britain, France, and the U.S., took more aggressive measures in support of the rebels. These ranged from on-the-ground training to supplying arms and providing real-time tactical intelligence, until Tripoli fell in late August and Gaddafi was killed two months later. Thus, an operation undertaken purely for humanitarian reasons eventually became one dedicated to regime change." Notice the last sentence. This article provides the clear example that many foreign countries intervene in a country that is "violating human rights" with a mouthful of great reasons-we're protecting the civilians, we're saving the innocent people from the crimes of their government, etc., etc. -and then in the end, it turns out- oh yeah, we were going to save the citizens, but well, the "authoritarian" government was really provoking us, so we decided to, you know, overthrow it , toss the country into more chaos, (without a truly legitimate government) wipe our hands, and leave.
You may argue that overthrowing a cruel regime is actually helping the citizens, and in the end, saving them, but it is not as it seems to be. Once that regime has been overthrown, the country will have to struggle with a new government, and who knows if that new government could be just as horrible or even worse than the old one. Not to mention it takes a long time to reconstruct a war torn city. and there may be more violence still, even after the war. And who's partly responsible? Foreign countries.
After the Iraq War:
After the war in Libya:
2. The United Nations
My opponent says that the United Nations decides and considers actions to be done once a certain country violates the international rules and regulations protecting human rights. I agree with my opponent on this part, but as in the Libya intervention example I have presented above,(and link) Britain, France, and the U.S. ended up playing roles in overthrowing the regime and leaving Libya in more chaos. Did United Nations want to kill Gadhafi? No, they did not. And sometimes, The United Nations can make some doubtful decisions. (I mean, I still admire it though.)
United Nations on Libya:
Lastly, my opponent points out that Gadhafi was killed by his own people, not by the foreign countries. That is true, but they committed a crime. They murdered him. It's not like the foreign countries who played a role in the Libya intervention weren't guilty. Gadhafi is one man, and countries like France, U.S., and Britain were really helping the rebels(refer to first quote at beginning of argument) with weapons and important information of the enemies. Wait a minute, I thought they intended to protect civilians and take them to safety and freedom, not actually get that involved? If you look at it, the foreign countries intervening in Libya charged up the protesters even more by supporting them, resulting in the bloody death of Gadhafi. (What about those thousands killed by the foreign countries during the war? No one's angry about that?)
*One last note- my opponent asked that if we don't know a supposed dictator is bad, how do we know he's good? Exactly. We'll never really know, so we can't just go accusing him of being a dictator.
I know Libya has been the central theme of this debate. I guess Libya just provides a lot of good examples for both sides. :)
Thanks again and please bear with my long arguments. I have a tendency to write a lot. :)
minoli forfeited this round.
1. When foreign countries aim to protect human rights in a country by involving themselves in that country's affairs, their wonderful plan to save civilians can backfire.
2. You don't really know whether the country's leader or even the country itself is a dictatorship, so you can't exactly justify your country's involvement in another country under the banner of "Protecting Human Rights".
3. After foreign countries involve themselves in a supposedly authoritarian country, they can end up
leaving that country in chaos.
4. Even the U.N. can make the wrong decisions.
To sum up, participation of foreign countries to protect human rights of another country ccannot be and is not justifiable. Thank you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.