Agreed 150%
Again, agreed with your accurate assesment.In Yemen, arguably, we enable a bad government to survive... but I've seen few good options proposed. Important to note that Yemen doesn't face "an insurgency" with "an insurgent leadership" that we can deal with if the government is unsuitable. Yemen faces a crawling chaos of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflict; the threat is not an insurgent victory but a descent into Somali-style anarchy.
Exactly, it didn't/hasn't/doesn't work with Tibet I don't see how or why it should with ETIM or the Uighur people. Non-intervention not more intervention should be the norm at least if we still believe in the notion of state soveriengty. Ultimately, whatever problems a people has with its government are its problem unless the issues should be so severe as to threaten regional and international security in which case its a regional problem (essentially the Edmund Burke doctrine from the French revolution) and only in the last instance is it an international one....unless you subscribe to the idea of universal peace/government (which demands intervention) which is a dream and not even a nice one. Indeed, in a number of cases (if not the majority) local dis/malcontents tactitly if not overtly assume and rely upon the internationalisation of their greivance. Turning a local issue into a global one which not only complicates its resolution but also involves parties who have no business being invlved in the first place and seek simply to gain in some way. Remove that and you, IMO only, dampen the flames that lead to escalation.The whole notion of "enabling" is something you seem to asume but do not demonstrate; I think you vastly overrate what we can or do actually "enable". Certainly in China, no matter what policy we adopt, we will not be "enabling" anything.
Bookmarks