Is it ethical for one country to remove another country’s head of state?
Moderator: John Gilbert
Speakers: Les Janka and Bill Patterson
Bill Patterson: His first thought was that one country removing the head of state of another country is not ethical. After more thought and study he then thought that maybe removal might be ethical. He referenced the UN Principle called The Responsibility to Protect, which asserts that state sovereignty has the primary duty to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If they fail, the international community should assist by building capacity and supporting human rights initiatives.
The Third Pillar of Responsibility says if a state is failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take appropriate collective action in a timely and decisive manner and in accordance with the UN Charter. Military action should be as a last resort and any intervention must be collective.
The Pillar of Responsibility was adopted by the UN in 2005 after a series of human right abuses in the 1990’s (specifically, Rwanda and the previous Yugoslavia). It was designed to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Peter McAllister asked whether China’s treatment of the Uighars constituted ethnic cleansing and would warrant intervention. Bill acknowledged the problem but pointed out that in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi wanted to arm his forces against his population. Under the Responsibility to Protect NATO intervened. But Gaddafi was killed and the country was thrown into a civil war, which is ongoing. Implementing the Principle involves risks and has to be done when interventions are just.
Les Janka told the story of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, who killed his king to become powerful but because of his actions descended into madness and then death. Actions can have unintended consequences. As a preventative, the UN was formed to require collective rather than unilateral action.
The concept of “just war” also serves as a limiting device to armed conflict. Its definition requires that war can only be morally justified under these conditions:
The right authority makes decisions
The decision is made with the right intention of bringing about peace
The war is a last resort
Les mentioned that Just War Theory dates as far back as St. Augustine and St. Thomas. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 established territorial sovereignty and was the beginning of modern states, which also involves interstate accords for the conduct of non-state affairs. The strength of its international accord was evidenced in the post-war Nuremberg Trials of 1945. Diplomatic immunity, checks on sovereignty and bad leaders are integral to the modern state system.
Possible justifications for conflict involve
(a) imminent threat to the country
(b) threat to neighbors
(c) a threat to vital resources.
However, international law requires that force be applied only when authorized and self-defense only when attacked.
Regime change is not legal for members of the United Nations. Moreover, it is not legal for the United States to unilaterally remove, arrest, or abduct a sitting foreign head of state. The United State Intelligence Activities Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, is still in force and forbids Americans to undertake assassinations.
Following the presentations, moderator John Gilbert opened the floor to questions and comments. Among those voiced were the following:
Who makes the decision to kill the leader, and under what authority?
A replacement could be worse, including retaliation.
There are many cases where the community takes action against dictators, and it’s not always about ethics.
Only Congress can declare war. The War Powers Act states that only congress can approve but the president can take action if there is an imminent threat but only for 60 days.
Trump did not ask for congressional approval to bomb Iran even though there was no imminent attack.
What’s next for Cuba? What threat do they present to the United States?
Cuba doesn’t provide a threat to the US but we are strangling them. Is this a distraction from other issues??
What is the goal for strangling Cuba? Could it be their terrorist training, that they have ties to Russia and China and are only 90 miles away from the US?
Photos of the bombing in Iran showed the location of the Minab Girls School in an area that was previously a military base and could be the reason the school had been mistakenly bombed.
Normally when a leader is kicked out the replacing government will not be a democracy — we pay for consequences of bad choices.