These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

What do you do?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#1 - 2012-02-22 02:10:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Seriphyn Inhonores
A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.

The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.

However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.

What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#2 - 2012-02-22 02:29:44 UTC
There's a severe lack of subtlety in this story, but I'll entertain your query.

Those people had the right to choose, granted they chose poorly in hindsight but it was their choice. However while the Federation cannot occupy the village itself, there was no reason it couldn't take position outside of the perimeter, and repel any would be hostiles.

Where there's a will there's a way, respect for the Village's self autonomy would be replied with respect for the Peacekeepers from the locals for their continuing service while adhering to agreements.

In time that would develop stronger ties and co-operation. Bullrushing in because "We know what's best for you" will never result in a positive outcome. Time and patience cannot be underestimated.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-02-22 02:41:49 UTC
Freedom of religion is a right. However, we should not hold fanatics and zealots in the same regard.

Also ethnic violence? That bothers me the most.

Either way we can consider their backwater days long gone. They are probably being watched now by more government organizations than the amount of ships I own.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 
Boma Airaken
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-02-22 05:23:10 UTC
What would I do as a Gallentean? Smoke dope and rap.
Tablaren
Mute Team 6ix
#5 - 2012-02-22 05:54:40 UTC
This is simple, they are murderers. Murderers need to be punished... yet they also deserve a chance to redeem their sins.

.........I sell their location and the information that the military isnt there to a slave trader and then go buy my wife something shiny.
Uraniae Fehrnah
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-02-22 07:44:31 UTC
Whatever point you might be trying to make by retelling the story and asking your question is, in a word, irrelevant.
Could the soldiers have stayed, against the villager's wishes? Absolutely.
Could they have then ended up preventing the violence? Possibly.
Could they have gotten caught up in the violence themselves, costing the lives of the soldiers and the aggressors? Possibly.
Would people in the Federation find reason to protest regardless? Absolutely.

Now, don't go getting defensive just yet. I'm not specifically criticizing the Federation or it's people, merely trying to point out a few rather simple and ancient facts about the human condition. Simply put, when it comes to people dealing with other people, there are never any "perfect" solutions. Hindsight is much clearer than foresight. No conventional system of governance or order will ever be free of the periodic necessity of having to choose between a bad choice and another bad choice.


As for the question of what I would do?

Well, that's a horribly imprecise question with very little background information to go on. I'm a capsuleer, and as such my ability to intervene in a planetary affair is...quite limited. I could jokingly say I'll simply drop an extraction and factory complex on both villages from orbit, and wonder why there are trace amounts of biomass showing up with the resources I'm collecting. But you're not looking for a joking answer are you?

So my serious answer will have to be, nothing. These two villages made their choices and now they will live or die with them. As long as people have the ability to chose, that ability will be used to chose to harm people.
Jev North
Doomheim
#7 - 2012-02-22 09:45:57 UTC
As written, there's little question that withdrawing the peacekeeping forces was the correct decision. Autonomy isn't just a feel-good word; it includes the freedom to make bad, wrong decisions that any sane person would disagree with. And, naturally, to carry the consequences of them.

The more interesting story would be the one where the village elders can't quite make up their minds, half the village welcomes the notion of intervention, and the other half is stockpiling weapons and making plans to bomb the Gallente embassy. Meanwhile the invaders are split into seventeen different factions with different aims and motives and plans, running the gamut from howling for blood to actively trying to prevent these silly invasion plans. And all of the major actors in the story have a long, bad history with everybody else, with plenty of semi-legitimate grievances to pick and choose from.

Now that's beginning to approach the complexity of real-world situations.

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#8 - 2012-02-22 11:15:55 UTC
That was there choice, we offered help, they reject it and then came consequences of that decission.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
TomHorn
Horn Brothers Holdings Inc.
#9 - 2012-02-22 11:36:22 UTC
Keep out Seriphyn , thats my advice. You cant police the whole universe. There is always going to be tyrants , religious and ethnic violence amongst some groups. Look after yourself and your important allies.

Its tough but sometimes you got to let people sort things out for themselves.
Vechtor
Doomheim
#10 - 2012-02-22 13:05:42 UTC
Oh, I see where you are trying to lead us. But let us first correctly contextualize things:

Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
A while ago, there was a story of an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. It was inhabited by an indigenous population that found itself at the brunt of religious violence from another indigenous ethnic group.


Intaki is far from being an extremely remote village on a backwater archipelago on a forgotten Federation world. Intaki is just 2 jump gates distance from Stacmon, a high level security system where even FDU has a station that serves many of the Federation organizations as a Trade Hub and Industrial Complex.
Intaki is far from being just a bunch of indians. On the contrary, it’s a very large ethnic group inside the Federation. Your comparison, for the purpose you were trying to achieve, between Intaki and a remote village of indians in a remote Federation planet is at the very least laughable.


Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
The village became known to the Federation only after they reported this incident to higher authorities. Local fighting was problematic, so the Federation Army was sent as a peacekeeping force.


Intaki, differently than that, helped to FORGE this Federation...

Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
However, the village elders decried this as illegal and unwelcome. Having legally-recognized rights in the Federal Charter, they demanded the Army leave. So they did, and the next day, the rival ethnic group launches an offensive on the village and massacres them, burning the entire settlement to the ground.

What do you in this situation? This is a common dilemma when it comes to questions of freedom, this time a question of freedom from interference. Many complain about Federation meddling in their affairs, and rightfully so, but is the opposite worth death?


Yes, you have the right to deal with things in your own residence. Outside of it, you have to act accordingly to a greater force that was instituted for that matter. The space around Intaki and other Placid systems is Federation responsibility. If you feel responsible to fight for "freedom" against Caldari invasion in this space, you have an implicit responsibility to fight against oppression from any other group in this same area.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#11 - 2012-02-22 13:22:09 UTC
Vechtor wrote:
The space around Intaki and other Placid systems is Federation responsibility.


Just to clarify, when you say "Intaki" are you talking about the space around Intaki the planet (thus Intaki the system) or Intaki the System (thus talking about neighbouring systems such as Vey)

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#12 - 2012-02-22 13:35:09 UTC
You have fetishized free choice.

Look at this. You have a problem with a very clear moral answer (Stop one tribe from slaughtering the other, since you have the power to do so), and the vast majority of the answers in this thread are 'let them kill each other. Free Choice is more important than their lives'.

No, it's not. It's really, really not.

If you have the power to stop a massacre, know it's coming, and yet you do nothing, you are almost as responsible for that massacre as those who planned and enacted it. Your inaction declares your guilt.
Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#13 - 2012-02-22 13:39:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Seriphyn Inhonores
While this situation can be applied to Intaki, the retelling of this event was to highlight a continuing problem within the Federation's borders. So called "Federal interventionism" takes place domestically as well as abroad.

Tiberious Thessalonia has the right of it. The Federation "fetishizes" freedom, yes, but several people don't properly understand what "freedom" means. It has two distinct branches...freedom of and freedom from. Under freedom from, you have the subbranch of autonomy, which is freedom from higher control.

If it's not the Federation's job, is it the job of non-governmental actors within the civil society? Even then, so-called charities and NGOs have been criticized for still projecting Gallentean influence.

It is important to look at matters three-dimensionally and structurally. An eternal debate within the Federation is the merits of interventionism (criticized as colonialism) versus libertarianism (criticized as apathy). You just can't please everyone.
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-02-22 13:43:58 UTC
Freedom is a right.

A right is a responsibility.

There's nothing more to it.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#15 - 2012-02-22 13:51:04 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
If you have the power to stop a massacre, know it's coming, and yet you do nothing.


You don't have to impede on their rights and wishes to stop the massacre you know.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#16 - 2012-02-22 13:56:10 UTC
Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.

People are capable of making very poor decisions. If they are making one that is against their own wishes, you have two choices.

You can let them make their very poor decision and suffer the consequences of it.

You can stop them from making their very poor decision and instead do the morally right thing.

Taking a libertarian stance, as General Inhonores calls it, is allowing this sample of humanity to choose itself into extinction, and if you could have stopped it, that makes you responsible.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#17 - 2012-02-22 14:05:21 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.


Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option?

If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Manwe Todako
Disciples of Ston
#18 - 2012-02-22 14:20:10 UTC
First, I want to thank the author of this thread for titling the thread "What do you DO!" Capsuleers are very good and responding to difficult moral issues with words piled upon words. This situation raises an important issue of religious violence all over our cluster and the millions who are killed, wounded and harmed each month.

We may not reach a consensus about this particular situation, but each of us can DO something to lessen the injustices of violence around us.

1. Reduce or eliminate your own acts of violence as much as possible. When in doubt, restrain.
2. Adopt a child orphaned or abandoned because of violence. Take care of widows who are so because of violence.
3. Work to reform your people's religion with a theology of non-violence.
4. Take as many risks to save lives as you would to take lives.

There is a start to answering the "DO" question.

SANKOFA
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#19 - 2012-02-22 14:36:52 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.


Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option?

If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond.


That fits very much into the 'You have the power to stop it' situation. Sadly, these conditions do not always exist (space enough between the people to situate yourself in, and either side being willing to talk to the other). In cases where they do not, you need to decide at what point you are going to stop and withdraw to allow the massacre to happen, or disregard the wishs of both groups in order to do what's morally right.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#20 - 2012-02-22 14:46:46 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Well, yes, you do. You have to impede the wishes of the one group to massacre the other. You have to impede the 'right' of the people who would rather see you go away than avoid being massacred.


Not necessarily. Why does everything have to result in violence? Since when was diplomacy and negotiation no longer an option? Since when was being a deterrent in a neutral area between the two places not an option?

If one side wishes to then attack the other they find you in their way, that doesn't stop them from carrying on if they want to, just they have to get through you first. They still have the right to do so, as much as you have the right to respond.


That fits very much into the 'You have the power to stop it' situation. Sadly, these conditions do not always exist (space enough between the people to situate yourself in, and either side being willing to talk to the other). In cases where they do not, you need to decide at what point you are going to stop and withdraw to allow the massacre to happen, or disregard the wishs of both groups in order to do what's morally right.


You can only go so far and do so many things that are within your limitations, regardless of size or position. Unfortunately not every scenario can end in a win. Relocation or interference can be met with outright hostility, till you find yourself at war with the people you tried to protect. Choice must sadly in some cases be respected, but only after all alternatives have been exhausted.

Problem is too few people have the patience to go through all the alternatives and merely resort to the quick easy solution.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
123Next page