As I wrote above, human rights cannot be
imposed. The very idea is silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

One does so by forcibly removing the obstacles to free choice. This is
often a small set of people and a power structure. Then one ensures
that the replacement small set of people and power structure will permit
the governed to choose freely.

Whether this is easy, hard, or next to impossible depends on many
things, including the underlying social structure and the external
politics. Whether this is desirable or not depends on which side of the
gun you sit.

Whether this is morally justified, or morally reprehensible, is the
question, and like many such, it is a tangle of intersecting rights. I
tend towards it being none of our business, until it threatens our
survival, in which case morals take a second place. What is wrong
however is doing this not when it threatens our survival, but when it
threatens to threaten our survival. It's like prosecuting somebody
because they came "too close" to the border of a restricted area.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.