When should dictatorships be supported?

As inspired by a conversation in the Middle Eastern Protests thread. Would you ever approve of your country's ruler supporting a dictatorship, or not getting involved in a massive act of suppression or genocide even if your help was asked for by its victims and your country could do so? Would you approve of international groups like the UN or NATO getting involved, or should they stay out of it too? Why or why not?

Feel free to use current, historical or fictional examples.

I'm all for kicking dictator butt whenever practical. I'm not inclined towards supporting them.

edited 24th Jun '11 2:41:00 PM by SavageHeathen

Supporting them is a bad idea in the long-term. You may get a short-term gain, but eventually they will become a burden of some kind, if nothing else, in reputation. If you believe in non-intervention as a strict policy, I can respect that, but if you are going to get involved, don't buddy-buddy with one. They'll end up becoming a skeleton in your closet.

Also, even if you oppose military intervention, there are plenty of non-force options.

edited 24th Jun '11 2:43:30 PM by blueharp

Support of dictators is bad by definition no matter the circumstance.

Don't support them, but refrain from any interfering in the countries' internal affairs.

As an absolute, or with certain exceptions (aside from the obvious, i.e. direct threats to national/international security)?

Unfortunately its just not possible in this current political system.

Everyone's hands are in every cookie jar now. Its just how many you take and whether you not you break the jar.

Sometimes you have to, due to a treaty, and you are morally obliged to uphold it.

Why are we morally obliged to uphold treaties with dictatorships?

, Yes, interfering is acceptable only if not interfering would break a previously signed treaty. And interfering on the basis of "moral obligations" is foolish at best - the world's politics are built on Gray-and-Grey Morality, and modern diplomacy is the art of lying and manipulations, so it's usually better not to make any early conclusions (example: In Lybia and Syria, government and rebel reports on the situation are often diametrically opposite. Who is to beieve?).

Correct. But that assumption stands only for powers like America, China or Russia. What I said is the best course of action for small, politically weak countries, though it would be perfect if everyone upheld that rule.

edited 24th Jun '11 3:07:01 PM by MilosStefanovic

Dictatorships can go screw themselves, no one is morally obligated to support such a corrupt regime.

A treaty is a treaty. What would happen if everyone would just start breaking international deals, laws and treaties based on their whim?

If you start violating treaties when your co-signer becomes distasteful, you completely make the concept of a treaty worthless, and legitimize the idea of a unconditional surrender and military occupation of your state in case of a military defeat.

Smart diplomats always include clauses to back out of treaties.

Also, what constitutes interference? Is a boycott interference?

We should never make treaties with dictatorships, and it should be international law that when a country becomes one all treaties are void.

Yeah. We don't want to become the League of Nations all over again, and we know how that ended.

So no treaties with dictatorships? What about opening trade with a dictatorship if they promise to allow more free speech or better civil rights or whatever?

But how can we properly define dictatorship? It's all in the eyes of the beholder. To some, FDR was a dictator. And I don't know what's wrong with benevolent dictatorship, if pulled of succesfully. Technically, Singapore is one. What's wrong with them?

Realpolitik. For example, we needed Stalin during WWII, and we needed to make treaties with him afterwards. And successor states sometimes, by necessity, must absorb the treaties of the prior state. That's just the way things are.

I am, however, for Loophole Abuse, such as when the Kingdom of Romania backed out a treaty obligation to Austro-Hungary by pointing out that they weren't technically coming to the defense of Austria because the Dual Monarchy was the aggressor state.

There are some people who honestly think Obama is a dictator, so yeah...

Whenever I'm playing Civilization.

Seriously. Why can't the democratic congress realize I'm declaring war because the Aztecs want to nuke me?

edited 24th Jun '11 3:27:53 PM by RedViking

Wait, why are we being so "dictatorships are Da Evil and we can't have one and if someone else haves one then their argument is invalid and the treaties too and they can screw themselves"? I guess the same is valid for the current kind of American-like governments or corporate-based dictatorships?

I mean... I recall seeing sometime ago a thread on the concept of a benevolent dictatorship...

edited 24th Jun '11 3:28:42 PM by SilentReverence

There are some people who claim my city's mayor is a dictator.

But just calling somebody a pejorative term is easy, the conventional meaning has become a description for somebody who rules with autocratic power against the consent of the governed, usually with aspects of oppression and violence against the people.

Well, Democracy is dictatorship by the majority. Except in First-Past-The-Post systems, where you can get to power with less than 50% of the vote.

@OP: When we benefit from supporting them.