Hmm. Mass protests in yet another country, but in this case the leader whose effigy is being burned (figuratively speaking, if not literally) is admired in many quarters, especially among Europe's left. It's union members demanding pay raises versus the socialist regime of Evo Morales. Morales "once led similar protests that forced two previous presidents from power," and he was "himself a trade union leader, and some of his ministers are former leaders of the" same union that's now demonstrating against them. Talk about turn-about being fair play!

Danivon: "Of course it's the fascist revanchists who are really responsible - socialist regimes never make such economic messes." (Just kidding - Danivon never said this - I'm putting words in his mouth in the worst possible way!)

Seriously, the situation does raise some interesting questions, or re-raise in a new light some questions that are still hanging around waiting to be answered:

• Under what circumstances would/should you sympathize with a popular uprising against a government that has international recognition and a seat at the UN?

• Under what circumstances should sympathy be backed up with material support in one form or another?

• Must they be fighting for one or more of the basic liberties mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? (One of these rights is "the right to equal pay for equal work" and in Bolivia the unionists are asking for raises. "The government has already approved a 10% increase for teachers, soldiers and police," and the unionists are asking for their fair share of that largess.)

• What if all they want is affordable bread?

• What if the basis for the uprising is a belief that el Presidénte has illegally skimmed a few billion from the public treasury? Should we citizens of lands where rule of law applies support an uprising, or should we demand a fair trial and due process for the accused leader and urge restraint upon the masses?

Lots of tough questions. Bolivia could surely give rise to lots more.

To be honest i don't know very much about the situation in Bolivia and the history of their political struggles. My feeling is that if there's at least mosty free and fair elections and a working system of justice we should stay out of internal struggles as long as violence and chaos don't lead to a failed state.
If there aren't any institutions that can mediate an internal conflict (like in authoritarian states or dictatorships) then i think we ought to involve ourselves if and when the populus seems to be finally fed up with their local cleptocrats.
The decision to get involved will probably be always a difficult call to make and should probably be based on the individual situation.
Do you think the situation in Bolivia (or Venezuela for that matter) is comparable to that in the Arab countries ?

It's interesting to note that these protests seem to have been caused by sharply rising fuel prices and Morales' attempts to end fuel subsidies. The same pressures were largely responsible for the spate of uprisings in the Arab world, rising fuel prices forcing up the cost of food and basic staples with wages unable to keep pace. In Tunisia and Egypt it caused people to lose their fear and rise up against an autocrat, in Bolivia it's causing the trades union movement to turn against one of their own. We're likely to see much more this type of thing. Poor countries are much more vulnerable to spikes in the oil price than we are and the trend seems to be heading inexorably upwards.

Under what circumstances would/should you sympathize with a popular uprising against a government that has international recognition and a seat at the UN?

Based on the assumption that people tend to prefer a quite life where they can enjoy routine tasks, a popular uprising would seem at once a sure sign that some serious grievance remains unaddressed by the government, irrespective of the ideological cloak the government wears. So, on those grounds, there is likely reason to sympathize with the people who are revolting.

Sympathizing with them against the government, however, is something quite different. It is to award legitimacy to the rebels at the expense of the government. Essentially, this is a question of which side to back, and the answer, I contend, is the winning side. For example, should the rebels succeed in gaining control of the country and replacing the government then there is little reason to cling on to recognizing the previous government.

For myself, I would sympathize with a popular uprising that sought to topple a regime which didn’t have strong judicial institutions which granted citizens procedural justice. I’m not sure, however, if we can develop a rubric which can be applied to all instances of popular revolt.

Also, in your opinion, does international recognition mean that a government is legitimate or does international recognition of some states recognize that no one is capable/interested in changing the government? To put it another way, is international recognition the only criterion for legitimacy on the international stage?

Under what circumstances should sympathy be backed up with material support in one form or another?

When our principles align with our interests. If we are interested in having one party emerge triumphant then we should be prepared to back them in their efforts. Additionally, if our enemies are supporting a particular side then we should consider supporting the opposition.

Must they be fighting for one or more of the basic liberties mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
That’s always nice. When their grievances are articulated with respect to existing international norms, it makes their case all the stronger. But must they be fighting for one of these principles. No I don’t think they must. Is democratic governance a human right? (Not sure if it has been codified in a treaty; the UDHR mentions “democratic societies”).

What if all they want is affordable bread?

I think that one of the prime responsibilities of the state is ensuring that food is both accessible and affordable. Failing in one of the most fundamental responsibilities of the state may stem from systemic factors but can also be influenced by mismanagement on the part of those in power.

Should we citizens of lands where rule of law applies support an uprising, or should we demand a fair trial and due process for the accused leader and urge restraint upon the masses?

Revolutions seem to have a peculiar tendency to be bloodthirsty affairs. While I think that a fair trial should be in order, it is hardly something that can be insisted upon when the revolt is in full swing.

Minister X wrote:Danivon: "Of course it's the fascist revanchists who are really responsible - socialist regimes never make such economic messes." (Just kidding - Danivon never said this - I'm putting words in his mouth in the worst possible way!)

Well at least you can admit it when you do it, unlike some people.

• Under what circumstances would/should you sympathize with a popular uprising against a government that has international recognition and a seat at the UN?

Well, sympathy is easy to come by. I will sympathise with a movement that aims to increase democracy in an undemocratic regime (such as I did the Polish Solidarity movement, such as I do many of the movements in the Arab world and Iran). I will not sympathise with a movement that aims to increase religious control of a country. Sympathy will differ based on how they go about their uprising (do they start off with violence, or with non-violent protest?). I'm not sure you can create a simple general 'rule' for this.

• Under what circumstances should sympathy be backed up with material support in one form or another?

It all depends on the response. If the response to non-violence is violence, then that increases the desire to help, doesn't it. It will always come down to individual cases as a combination of the following:
a) Our view of the case for the uprising
b) Our view of the case for opposing it (supporting the government)
c) Our ability to actually intervene, and what intervention we can provide
d) Whether such intervention may make things worse (for example, in a country with a general anti-Western feeling, would it help a noble popular movement if it became associated with Western intervention? And if there was direct evidence of that intervention?

Generally, I think that such uprisings, if they are genuine popular revolts against an unfair regime, are better to be self-maintained, with little outside assistance unless clearly necessary. Here's an example you'd understand. The US revolution was home-grown. Your forebears had a good case (generally) and our government over-reacted. The revolutionaries and a large proportion of the people supporting them did most of the work to win the war. France intervened at the end, but that really foreshortened the war more than decided the result. Clearly France had another motive to assist a rebellion against Britain, but they didn't really use the war to gain any influence in the US or to hijack the revolution. Not a bad intervention, really.

• Must they be fighting for one or more of the basic liberties mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? (One of these rights is "the right to equal pay for equal work" and in Bolivia the unionists are asking for raises. "The government has already approved a 10% increase for teachers, soldiers and police," and the unionists are asking for their fair share of that largess.)

Well, it's all moot in this case. The unions were asking for a 15% rise. After a week or so, the government offer of 10% was accepted. The unions generally seem to support government policies of increased state control of their industries. Canadian HR Reporter report on the end of the strike

But on the general case, I'm not sure that they must be explicitly fighting for such rights. By being oppressed and treated in violation of those rights (such as indiscriminate beatings and shootings, arrest without trial, etc), they are implicitly doing so.

• What if all they want is affordable bread?

I think that provides a greater incentive to assist. In what way though, I don't know.

• What if the basis for the uprising is a belief that el Presidénte has illegally skimmed a few billion from the public treasury? Should we citizens of lands where rule of law applies support an uprising, or should we demand a fair trial and due process for the accused leader and urge restraint upon the masses?

Can't we do both? Support an uprising and impress upon it's leaders that it's a good idea not to end up with revenge and victor's justice. Oppose a leader but encourage them to answer the charges against them. I would hope that's what we have been doing in Libya (although I suspect that some of it is less enthusiastic than other parts).

Lots of tough questions. Bolivia could surely give rise to lots more.

It could. If they are going to react like Libya or Syria or Bahrain, then we can compare them. If it's a darn sight more peaceful then... umm... chances are that there will be fewer questions. I hope that's the case. So far it looks like a strike has resulted in a compromise, so I suspect your hopes for an equivalent to shove in the faces of the Left will be in vain. Awww, shame

danivon wrote:So far it looks like a strike has resulted in a compromise, so I suspect your hopes for an equivalent to shove in the faces of the Left will be in vain. Awww, shame

Oh, well... can't win 'em all.

Magister Equitum wrote:...is international recognition the only criterion for legitimacy on the international stage?

I also mentioned a seat at the UN. If you drill down into this topic it can get quite complex. Start HERE. It's actually quite an interesting Wiki page!

PRC/ROC would be an interesting topic for a thread. Once upon a time it was a partisan issue and even caused some tensions between the USA and a few allies, but time tends to be the deciding factor in such things, and commercial interests, over time, tend to throw a fog over ideological positions. No one (except Taiwan) is going to risk a commercial relationship with a market of 1.3 billion people over the fine points of international law as they might apply to a peculiar historical situation that had resolved itself on the ground before 90% of people alive today were even born. It would be interesting to see how opinion here might divide on some carefully-worded questions.