« Who Are The Mortacracies? Part Vi--The Answer | Main | And these are the teachers of the future Spanish Foreign Experts »
May 9, 2006
Who Are The Mortacracies? Part VII--What To Do About Them
In the previous post, I defined the worst group of mortacracies in the world today. For reference, I also include the list here:
Okay, what can we do about them. First, I do not suggest any democracy make war on these mortacracies, or militarily attack them unless:
• They are a direct or immediate threat to the national security of a democracy, as is Iran in its development of nuclear weapons and being the home of Islamofascism.
• They have invaded a democratic neighbor.
• They are supporting and aiding terrorism against a democracy, as did Afghanistan under the Taliban.
• They are engaged in wholesale democide, as was Rwanda and Serbia, and as is Sudan today.
But, there is much that can be done otherwise and I will divide this into what democratic governments can do, and what you and I must do first. This distinction is crucial. Democracies will not act unless their top legislative and executive leaders perceive that this is what the people really want--that there is a national will. This is one reason that the Clinton administration did nothing with regard to Rwanda, except hinder the action by others that might have dragged them into doing something. Congress and the administration well perceived that the American people had no interest in intervening to prevent the genocide, and there was no interest within the government to create--excite--such a demand. And similarly, this is why it took years for President Clinton to finally get involved in the Bosnian genocide. Photographs of the dead, pleas from the victims, and the haplessness of the UN finally generated enough media, public, and congressional outrage to propel Clinton into action.
Similarly, with the intervention of the senior President Bush in Somalia. The sympathy and concern of the public over the Somali famine, the belief that millions would starve to death, and the clear anarchy of the country leaving no authority to prevent the famine was made clear by the media. But, above all, what was most effective in arousing the public for intervention was the widely circulated, pitiful photographs of starving children with sad eyes and distended bellies.
(Continued here)
Posted by Rudy at May 9, 2006 10:04 PM
