The Prime Directive

Remove all ads!

Actually, since slavery was mentioned, let me point out how having intervention/influence can be a good thing.

Slavery itself was heavily embraced by the British Empire at one point. Even if most slaves weren't on their way to England itself the trade made much money for people and institutions based there and slavery was present in other parts of the Empire that were viewed as more colonial.

Then the British Empire decided to ban the slave trade (and eventually slavery itself). When it did so it eventually began to force this ban on other nations. Brazil in specific got around to banning slavery mainly because of foreign pressure-at one point a British naval vessel chased a Brazilian bound slave trading ship to a Brazilian port and, I believe, proceeded to blockade that particular port for a bit of time.

Did the Brazilian ban on slavery serve to bring about equality and freedom the day it was signed?

No. The enforcement was spotty and inequality related to racism is still an issue in Brazil today (present on its own though not as noted and talked about as flat out wealth divides/economic inequality).

But it was a step in the right direction for Brazil.



Instead scraping all intervention in a prime directive style why not ask if there is a system that can be codified (may not be today) that determines when and how intervention is a good thing (such as for human rights and/or humanitarian reasons-just to mention it is rational to discuss how effective, costly, or justifable such an intervention would be in a discussion.

 

I agree that refusing to do business with someone isn't directly "forcing" them to do something. However, if that country depends on trade with countries that start refusing to do business with them, it's not a great leap for them to feel as if they're being "forced" to do what the countries refusing to do business with them want, due to the economic damage caused.

And as I've described earlier, if the trading countries are required to do business with the "slaver" country, they might feel that they are being forced to tolerate beliefs that are abhorrent to them.


BTW, I'd say that military force represents the ultimate "force". But there are other ways to "force" or try to force someone to do something... Of course, the difference is that those other ways tend to be more along the lines of trying to convince the other person/country in the strongest way possible to change, whereas military force quite literally "forces" change. I suppose another way to look at it is that the non-military means can be described as "you will do things differently or we'll make your life increasingly more uncomfortable", vs. the military way "you will do things differently or we'll end your life and change things ourselves".