I agree with humanitarian aid. If the government(s) are not capable of controlling their countries then giving the people food and medicine will only aggravate the situation and prolong it. With that being said I believe that other pressures and sanctions can be used. The first is the impounding of all the participants bank accounts, revoking of visas for the leaders and their families, blockades of weapons and so forth. Also highlighting either sides actions in the press and on the annual human rights review (one of the best tools we have to advance our agenda of secular liberalism and rule under the law). With that being said if there is one side that is demonstrably in a position of power and we don't like it we can arm the other side to even the odds. Here I am thinking of Yugoslavia. What do you think?

"With that being said I believe that other pressures and sanctions can be used. The first is the impounding of all the participants bank accounts, revoking of visas for the leaders and their families, blockades of weapons and so forth" Wont work. I am an opponent of sanction, even so called smart ones. For on thing civilans are the only ones really effected by it. Saddam has been made stronger not weaker by the sanctions. Secondly even smart sanction will create the impression in the mind of the people that Americans hate them (as opposed to their governemnt). I can say this for Pakistan. When the shit hit the celling after the Nuclear tests there was resentment aginast American sanctions. Espically since we arleady had sancion since '79 for having nukes we had not tested (as did isreal who had not testd them but did not invite sanctions there.... that really pissed us off) and because our tests and even the devolopments of nukes were in reaction to India. So because America took a Idealist approach to the tests and declared that all nukes not in the hands of the big 5 (+ Israel) were MORALLY wrong tried to presue this HUMANE ideal through smart sanction people in Pakistan still had huge resentment aginast the sanctions. These resentments will not be that hard to remove becuase the masses have a short political memory. But I belive I have illistrated my point about the ineffcitiveness of sanctions. A better case may have been to point to Iraq or Cuba but I didnt want to get into that right now. "Also highlighting either sides actions in the press and on the annual human rights review (one of the best tools we have to advance our agenda of secular liberalism and rule under the law)." Passive promotion of secular liberalism and rule under the law is more effective than aggressive promotion. So I have to agree with you here. "With that being said if there is one side that is demonstrably in a position of power and we don't like it we can arm the other side to even the odds. Here I am thinking of Yugoslavia" On the surface this sounds like a good idea.However,I would have the following considerations in mind.... 1) Will it destablise the status quo around the region or elsewhere? 2) Will our newly armed friends turn agianst us? As they did in agfanistan after the soviets left 3) Would it work counter our realpolitk intrest? 4) In a bi or mulitpolar interanationl system is there a chance that other powers would start arming the side WE dont like to reestablish the status quo? Is there a possiblity of this turning into a region arms race? Or a global race to arm ones allies? 5) Is there a possiblity that this new ally would turn agianst a friend of a power greater than ourselves? As in the case of Pakistan arming the Taliban to counter Iranian backing of shia factions. (Which did reduce the crime rate in agfanistan and reduce cases of human rights abuses, the talibans own abuses stood out because of the possiblity of documenting them but there was a general anarchy in the country before them.)

Pakistani, Excellent points. I was a little hasty with the sanction idea. It's good to hear from someone on the receiving end. However I still like the idea of hassling the power structure with the lack of easy exit from their self made hell hole. Reading your post I have the impression that they don't work and are opposed to their use.

"However I still like the idea of hassling the power structure with the lack of easy exit from their self made hell hole. Reading your post I have the impression that they don't work and are opposed to their use" I dont know jeff, I really have not thought it out... however it may or may not back fire. What if a dictator has popular support... it would probally offend the people of the country to rebuff him on moral grounds. Wouldnt it be out of diplomatic norm though? Even diplomats of countires you dont like should be dealth with fairly. But I would have liked it if Prime Ministers Sharif and Buttho had been harrased by the west... they certianly would have desereved it.

Technically, nearly every country except possibly Iceland can be plausibly accused of "Imperialism". Use more exact words. Ghengis Khan was a "robber". Macdonalds fast foods are merely "annoying outsiders". The former is obviously higher on the scale of sin than the latter. Yet both are called "imperialists".

God bless American Imperialism. McDonalds's? In what other UNIVERSE could the world's most popular restaurant possibly have a Scottish name? There is GOOD Imperialism and there is BAD Imperialism. BAD Imperialism is when you say "surrender to me your lands, your cattle, and your women, and swear eternal loyalty, or i shall kill you". GOOD Imperialism is when you say "Buy my tasty hamburger, please" and they riot and cuss and angrily denounce your hamburger, and then, when they think no one's watching, they sneak back and buy a whole bag of them. McDonald's is the fastest growing restaurant chain in France. next: Starbucks.

That was my point; that imperialism is a word that can imply a great many different social phenomenon,and that even the worst forms are nearly universeal (come to think of it, I believe the Icelanders I mentioned chased out the Irish monks who were there before). Imperialism can be bad (like Ghengis Khan) neutral (like MacDonalds). or even good (like the suppression of Meditteranean piracy in the 1800's). If one accuses one should know what the accuseation is.

P.S. Oh, by the way I wasn't intending to insult MacDonalds (the clan or the restaurant) when I called them "annoying outsiders". I was merely saying that that is really the worst accuseation that can be brought.

"Yet both are called "imperialists"." Only by the craven or the ignorant.

"imperialism is a word that can imply a great many different social phenomenon" Try getting a dictionary and look up the word "influence". Then practice using it where "imperialism" is inapplicable.