Aeolus451 said:
They were sanctioned before as a way of putting pressure on them to stop doing the same kind of shit (different ethnic groups) they are doing now. Of course, they'll do business where they can to make up for the sactions. Some countries might have imperialist intentions while others just want to put out fires as they happen. How else do you deal with a government that's killing alot of innocent people outside of sanctions/threatening their interests and/or war? On the new home thing, inching towards what I think you are? It is complicated because each country has their own issues to deal with and adding more refugees doesn't help that a great deal. If a country is up to it, I don't care. The US is already involved with a bunch of different countries. The UN should step to the plate on this either through action, financal aid or whatever. This is definitely right up their alley. |
Sanctions are obviously largely ineffective at actually effecting change, US sanctioned Iraq for decades for only effect to kill a million civilians thru deprivation, while finally going to war a decade later. Largely it's a mean to 'bleed' enemies (abstract concept, real victims), and this can be done thru sponsored insurgency as well, e.g. Nazi UPA remnants terrorizing Soviet Ukraine after WWII even though nobody expected them to "win". The opposing interest against doing that is competition in national/business interests, and really that isn't just China e.g. Japan did not impose same sanctions but pushed major investments while US was still in sanctions mode in 90s. Note, the US didn't sanction Burma until the 90s, despite the military government pursuing the same type of conflicts vs ethnic militia earlier because the ethnic militia were allied with Communists the US preferred to have military dictatorship killing them.
Re: settlement, as I said that it's complicated, costly, etc, is exactly why issue is downplayed and not addressed. UN doesn't have any $ of it's own, it's irrelevant to suggest them doing something, they can at most be FORMAT for refugee support but that doesn't address location of refugees. Certainly many countries can help if they so choose, "Rohingya" refugees already live in many countries. Bangladesh is natural destination given the country was started as nation for Muslim Bengalis which Rohingya are, but there is political and financial issues there which at least need 3rd party support, if that means others help pay for it while not taking Rohingya immigrants themselves, that's politics. UK's historic responsibility certainly is hard to ignore, and they plausibly can play a role $ or people wise, and have existing Bengali community as well. The more countries that can help either $ or people wise the more realistic it is to solve it, doesn't really matter who these countries are, but not helping in these areas is not part of solution, and neither is pearl clutching. Maybe there is some sentiment that resettlement is less legitimate because they should all be able to stay where they are, but that ignores the historical illegitimacy behind large "Rohingya" population there and Myanmar/Burma is 110% conscious of that factor. So pretty clear that resettlement of at least large majority is the objective means to solve problem and prevent further human rights violations, issue is just who is willing to help. Or not.
