Choices in a democracy - including inaction / foolish action / allowing evil

There is a story about a boy in the Netherlands who put his finger in a leak in a dyke, and thereby prevented a flood. That story has all sorts of lessons in it, but the one I am thinking of is that of taking a small action to prevent something "bad" happening - such as, to choose a range of examples, listening to your doctor on health matters and those urging simple measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, acting early to stop despots like hitler coming  to  power - oh, and voting in elections, which is simple in most situations, but is more complex in the Unexceptional  States of America. 

I've just - well, last night - watched the Aaron Sorkin movie "The Trial of the Chicago Seven", about a group of eight, initially, seven white and one black (completely unconnected with the protests, incidentally), who were put on trial after the protests outside the 1968 US Democratic Party nomination convention (DNC). 

The film necessarily omits a great deal, and I've got some of the missing extra points from John  Schultz's books - although I've not read them completely yet (and have resorted to the academic short cut of reading intro and conclusions).

However, there are a number of points that I wish to make - and I wish to be clear I am limiting this discussion to democratic, or reasonably close to democratic, societies. Despotic regimes are a whole different kettle of fish (see this, this, this, and this book for some useful comments about changing those). 

(Note: I may tweak this after I publish it - I often have the habit of noticing things after I've published that I missed before, even if I slept on the draft.)

Firstly, the police. 

The police were clearly operating under orders, but orders to be violent (and these orders were FAR beyond anything that could be considered reasonable) are not only questionable, but ILLEGAL. 

Obeying such illegal orders puts those police into the same category as those Germans who claimed they were obeying (nazi) orders when they committed atrocities. 

This  is  important. Despite the vital necessity of obeying orders in combat, militaries go to considerable effort these days to emphasise the topic of obeying only lawful orders - which is why the current investigation of my nation's commandos and SAS seems to have originated with a whistleblower from inside the military. It is why, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there were incidents where my nation's pilots refused to carry out attacks as ordered because the target was, for instance, beside a school. It is why some US personnel refused duty with those from my nations who were rabid abusers who "saw the line [delimiting acceptable behaviour] and hopped right over it".

Militaries can be slow to learn, but they - in free nations, at any rate - do eventually learn (mostly - and senior command in my nation's military, as with senior command in my home state's police, are trying to be inclusive).

I've written elsewhere about problems that contribute to this slavish adherence to orders, even if those orders are illegal (such as the hardening of attitudes and growing intolerance/cynicism of long serving police who have been harmed by the trauma they are exposed to, the flaws in recruiting and enlistment which place THEIR version of ORDER before the law [which is wrong], and the problems of the paramilitary approach to community service).

The consequences of this behaviour by police include them developing a bias towards thinking they are, not so much above, as within a special category of the law. 

They're not. 

The other major consequence of this includes a loss of community trust in police - or a loss of community trust from sections of the community (e.g., LGBTIQ+ people, members of ethnic, religious and other minorities, and women - and the current revelations of DV within police in my home state were matched more than a decade ago by police in one regional town doing what was effectively rape). Over time, that loss of trust leads to things like the protests since police killed Mr George Floyd. 

On that, white people subjecting other people who aren't white (black slaves, blacks and coloured people, Native Americans, Indigenous people in Australia, etc) to murder / lynching / mob ("arbitrary") justice / legally sanctioned murder ("execution") has been happening for a long time - four centuries in the USA, two and a half centuries in my nation, longer when considering Europe's (and I am including the UK in that) imperial behaviour. 

In the case of the protests outside the 1968 US DNC, there is a very important fact - shown in the title of Mr Schultz's book about the protests, which is "No One Was Killed: The Democratic National Convention, August 1968" (Mr Schultz's book about the trial is "The Conspiracy Trial of the Chicago Seven"). As Mr Schultz discusses, there were black people killed by the police just before and after the protests, including during the utterly botched "trial", and yet, despite the police being "white faced" with anger and clearly wanting to do more, no (white) protestors - nor any of the innocent bystanders police assaulted - were killed. 

The police at that time were clearly racist, and choosing to interpret their orders in a way that enabled them to be racist - just as they had done in previous decades, and just as they have done in subsequent decades right up to and including NOW. (That includes my nation - see here, here, here, here, here, from two days ago this, and, of course, the nation wide issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody, which culminated in the Royal Commission last century, many of the recommendations of which have not been fully or properly implemented YET.)

That discretionary exercise of power shows that the claims of "just following orders" are lies. 

What makes it worse is that, in my state at least, force command is trying to be inclusive and build a force that represents, is responsive to, and polices for, the entire community (e.g., see here), which, again, makes a mockery of the whole "obeying orders" rubbish. 

Police engaging in disproportionate violence, bigotry, and abuse of power (including in how  they  think  about  themselves) are not protecting nor serving the community, they are not following the lawful orders of police, and they ARE ACTIVELY harming the very people they are meant to be protecting. 

Liars - hypocrites! You are unfit to wear the uniform, and are letting down your other colleagues, the majority of police who DO want to be decent people and serve the community. 

Now, the protestors.

As already stated, the protestors were - or predominantly were - white, but not all were young. They had problems with unconscious bias, including the unearned advantage of the circumstances of their birth.

There was, quite clearly, some mostly good thinking going on in the positions they were advocating - and there was NO doubt that the world needed to change for the better, but I am left with a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the behaviour seen in 1968 was more about rebelling against parental and other authority - along the lines of throwing a tantrum - than a serious effort to achieve change.

In the short term, change requires pressure on those with power: protests that gain enough appropriate (not necessarily favourable) media coverage can do that, which is where exercising the right to public protest comes in to play - and keep in mind that Gene  Sharp  once listed 198 ways to protest non-violently, so protests are far from being the only way to act. 

In the medium term , it takes a combination of political manoeuvring which may or may not involve protests and education of the community. 

In the long term (think the two plus millennia campaign against slavery, and the century or so campaign for women's suffrage [voting]), it is all about educating and changing the community.

At all stages, you are after someone's hearts and minds: 

• in the short term, what gets the media's hearts and minds is important, but that can be a problem if they take the wrong slant, and thus lose you the political hearts and minds who are the real target - and if you're going after the media's hearts and minds by means of aggravating the police, what do you do if the police become excessively violent, as shown recently? Every death, injury or trauma committed by police must be weighed against both the ongoing deaths, injuries and traumas resulting from not acting against evil, and the possibility that - when the glamour of attention from protest are removed - there may be other, possibly better, ways to act (or to possibly do in conjunction with street protests).
  Remember that this is a numbers game. I've had people suggest street marches for very small minorities, and, frankly, it would have looked nonsensical and been utterly ineffective - and those wanting to exhibit their courage by being abused or arrested would probably have been as ignored as the single person wearing a "sandwich  board" (this was an interesting example of a supposedly ineffective sandwich board).
  Also remember that protests do not always move political hearts and minds - think of Thatcher's hardening of resistance over the coal strikes, for instance.
  I think of exactly that when I hear, for instance, young activists proudly advocate for militancy. No, militancy is not a tool for all occasions - there are many tools, and militancy in often in the "likely to cause collateral damage in the broader hearts and minds we're aiming out" tool box.
  
• building from that ;last point, in the medium term, you're adding in the quest for the hearts and minds of enough citizens to achieve change - and that requires a combination of first not driving them away (as Obama supposedly said, DDSS; as Gandhi said, "do you fight to change things, or to punish?"), and then and only then, educating them; 
  
• in the long term, it is about addressing cycles in society, including how people raise their children, so you're back to the problem you had right from the first step: how to reach the heart and mind of someone doing wrong in a way that will result in them changing - not that will make you feel better, but that will actually result in change. Street marches can play an important initial role, but there's going to be more needed - and they can do harm: in the case of the 1968 protests, they turned too many voters away from the US Democratic party, and it doesn't matter who initiated it or mishandled it, the whole situation led to a damaging outcome.
  

Read this book, familiarise yourself with  Cure  Violence, view the other links I've given above, study Paul K Chappell's work (especially the references to Gandhi), accept responsibility, and think carefully - be clear whose hearts and minds you're after, in what time frame, and exactly how that will achieve change, remembering to see the matter from their viewpoint, not how you think they should see it. (Also think long term: how do you minimise burn out? How do you replace those who have become burned out or been diverted by other parts of life, etc? Four years is a typical time limit on the majority of activists, in my experience. How do you develop not only the next generation of activists, but the next generation/refinement of ideas and actions? How do you adapt to broader changes, and work WITH others?)

Finally, to think everyone is extroverted / angry enough to want to protest and be the centre of attention to show the same flawed understanding of human behaviour that is being shown by those who you are opposing. To expect them to be part of that is to exhibit the behaviour you want to change. 

Moving on, the media.

The media were the targets of both the protestors and those in political power - especially as, at that time, the police hadn't realised that they were always being watched (it took the US military in Iraq a while to work that out too - which, in our now far more connected world, was incompetent).

The media, in my opinion, were being manipulated just as they were during the early stages of the war in Vietnam, by many people in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (except for Knight-Ridder), just as too many have been during the current wave of protests in the USA, just as they have under the apparent leadership of the Murdoch conglomerate here in Australia.

Some weren't and aren't - John Schultz seems to have had a good idea of what was going on at the 1968 US DNC, for instance; The Guardian and The New Daily now are doing a reasonable job here in Australia, and PBS seems to be a good job in the USA.

Those that were manipulated in 1968, or are being manipulated now, were/are unprofessional, incompetent, naïve dupes - they were/are NOT journalists. Some of those people were at an editorial level.

Yes, conveying the news is important - but that is in the context of the purpose of that information, which, in the political arena, is to enable voters to hold their elected representatives to account, not to please moguls nor the politically powerful nor to attract the easily led/misled in order to get clicks. 

Forget about Knight-Ridder: there were plenty of people who could see the Iraq War was unjustifiable on the grounds claimed, just as there are plenty of people seeing through the rubbish being pushed now about managing the pandemic. Why not the journos involved? 

I suspect the problem comes down to, as with the police, thinking you're separate/special - in this case, because you claim the title "journalist" (I have known a small number of journalists, by the way -  some good, some not). 

Some people clearly deserve to wear that title with honour and pride - including those reporting accurately now, and those who have reported well in the past - or will in the future, but to parrot government propaganda (some media releases are  NOT propaganda) uncritically makes you as much of a dupe as those police following illegal orders.

The media in 1968 who reported on the moments of violence without explaining the context and the lead up were not reporting the news: they were describing sensationalist snapshots and creating a false impression in the minds of their readers/viewers.

They were the other tools used by Daley to destroy the prospects of a Democratic victory in the 1968 US Presidential election. 

So, on that . . .

Those in political power.

Mayor Daley was worse than a fool - he cost the US Democratic party that election, he cost the USA part of its soul - and the chance of having a leader who, since the 1940s, had been arguing for civil rights, and he cost the world the chance of having a decent human being leading one of the world's most powerful nations. (Mind you, the USA and the world lost a lot more when Robert Kennedy was murdered during that election [I find "assassinated" a bit of a weak word, incidentally, for the taking of a human life - it suggests that the political aspects have a valid role, and they don't].) 

Would the Vietnam War have continued? Probably. 

Would the Vietnam War have escalated? I doubt it, given Humphrey's less racist and more progressive history (Wikipedia describes him as "an early sceptic" about that conflict, until Johnson bullied him into toeing the party line), but the US military was itching - and had been, all the way through - for a million troops on the ground in Vietnam. 

Would a peace or at least an end to the Vietnam War have been found under Humphrey? Maybe, if it didn't escalate, but there was a lot of bad advice floating round. Humphrey's behaviour in the Senate after he lost the presidential campaign suggests an end may have been found.

But what WOULD have happened would have been better civil rights in the USA (this reports "Post election polls showed that Humphrey lost the white vote with 38%, nine points behind Nixon, but won the nonwhite vote solidly, 85% to 12%") - and how would that have changed that nation and its influence in the world in the decades since?

Daley has to be listed prominently in the annals of those who have created and then used fear of disorder for political purposes - him, hitler, Nixon, and the USA's 45th "president", although how well that will work for the latter is still up for debate.

Which leads us to . . .

The voters. 

This is where I circle back to the story I started this post with - the boy with his finger in the dyke.

The popular vote in the USA in 1968 was close - 43.42% to 42.72%, despite the landslide in the USA's unbelievable and undemocratic "electoral college" system (I've written a little about that "system" here). The choices facing voters in the USA were: 

• an out and out white supremacist running in the US south (with a military VP candidate who wanted to bomb North Vietnam);
  
• a beat up about law and order (thanks, ironically, to Daley), lies about Vietnam (and there was Nixon's sabotage of peace talks), and a commitment to stop socially progressive moves;
• someone with a long and active history of being social progressive, and hints of being anti-war; and 
• to be an arrogant, patronising and patriarchal IPOC by cynically, hypocritically and stupidly "thinking" participating was beneath you, was beneath contempt, or was meaningless, by choosing not to vote.
  

Voters in the USA can choose to vote or not, and then they have to choose who to vote for. 

While I've often thought voters (and I favour lowering the voting age, incidentally) should have a "none of the above" option, I've also often speculated that those who don't vote may be giving up any moral right to comment on politics (there are exceptions - for instance, Derryn Hinch used to not vote [but would happily and pay the fine] so that he could preserve his political neutrality as a journalist).

The biggest problem, however, particularly for the USA, is voter cynicism. 

In my opinion, cynical voters as bad as cynical police - the cynical voters are just in a different situation, one that means the damage they do is slower to be seen, but neither actually really understands reality, let alone how to be a decent, responsible adult. 

Cynical voters are the people who ignore the small leak in the dyke, or possibly even make a cynical remark along the lines of "well, what do you expect", and walk off to complain vociferously to their equally cynical friends. 

Those voters are part of the group of voters whose attention is being sought - and extreme measures are sometimes needed to batter down their cynicism, or, in the case of other voters, their complacency, their refusal to see, their habitual and unthinking blind loyalty, their other faults. 

The blasted theatre of politics is necessary to quite an extent because of voter inattention - or indifference.

And the thing is, the fact that some voters can see through all this - including voters in the USA in 1968, and some voters in Australia in 2019, means it is possible for other voters to be more aware and thus more effective. 

As a general example of what can be achieved, voters can look at their streets, realise claims of widespread disorder do not match reality, and ignore propaganda saying otherwise. 

When people are taught to defend themselves against misleading information on social media, a fair chunk of that is being taught to invest a modicum of effort into thinking, instead of reacting out of a habit (and cynicism is a habit). 

Voters can do better; voters must do better - for themselves, for the sake of anyone they care about, for the sake of their nation, and for the sake of the world and the future. 

Don't allow yourself to be duped by being cynical, by being uncritical, or by being habitual / blindly loyal. 

One final category: justice

How could someone like Justice Julius  Hoffman be allowed to act as a judge? 

Yes, it is vital to the independence of judiciary that they largely be protected against criticism, which could be political, but they have to be unbiased and objective - and actually reasonably in tune with the times. A few decades ago I wrote directly to a judge who had criticised  cross dresser during sentencing to criticise that aspect of the court case - I didn't criticise the decision of the conduct of the case (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here - all of which means one must be careful, respectful, and reasonable), only specifically the judge's claim that his views represented society, which they didn't. 

I got a non-reply, one which simply confirmed how small his social circle evidently was, and left me briefly thinking favourably of a proposal that judges decide guilt/innocence and juries decide sentences - which would be (a) disastrous, as juries could be vindictive (legally, "arbitrary" and inconsistent with other sentencing), and (b) contrary to the whole notion of being tried by one's peers - although, as the film I watched last night illustrated, that may not occur anyway.

There is, however, a need for some form of judicial accountability or review. As I write this, I'm aware that one judge has a very high history of decisions being overturned on appeal, but I'm also aware that they are generally older (to the point of risking senility, in some cases, but most seem to have been quite alert and mentally competent until their demise), may have been somewhat cloistered by their involvement in law, and thus may actually be out of touch with community expectations. 

The word "may" is important, as when decisions have been tested by giving the same evidence to members of the public to see what sentences they would impose if they knew all the facts of the case, the public has generally been softer in sentencing than the judges - EXCEPT when it came to sexual assault, where the sentences imposed - particularly by women - were far more stringent (and, in my opinion, more appropriate) than those imposed by judges. That means that, despite the risks I listed, on the whole judges do OK.

But there are still problems - and people have to be rich to realistically take matters to appeal.

On this matter, I have no solutions in mind (I've been working on this post for around seven [unpaid] hours, which doesn't help, either). 

For your consideration, here are: 

• links on judicial independence: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here;
  
• links of judicial accountability: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I know what I want to see - an independent and accountable judiciary, with measures that give confidence to the actual community on that: apart from explaining what is there now (and explaining a few other fundamentals while at it), I don't how to achieve it, with regard to the judiciary, although I'm reasonably satisfied most of the time.

More from the news

I was pleased to discover that companies have concerns about the proposed engineer's registration  bill. In the end, I couldn't face putting in a submission, although I will finish another post for this blog. 

On other matters: 

• a letter calling for dignity to be a key feature of campaigns for better treatment of minorities;
  
• an "Awakening Humanity" award for a mother-daughter team doing wonderful work in Somalia; 
• good articles from a blog I have just found here, here, and here; 
• appalling violence by CCP officials against a Taiwanese diplomat raises serious questions about the enforcement of international law; 
• Sudan is moving closer to being a member of the international community; 
• staggering evidence that police in Victoria are treated differently to others - that there is either, effectively, a second system of laws for them, or they are being treated as above the law - which comes on top of weak responses to assaults by police, including against a disability pensioner. This problem - domestic violence by serving police officers - is one that former Commissioner Christine Nixon talked about: was that part of why she was driven out?
  There are a disturbing number of police who have shown themselves to be homophobic, transphobic, racist (see this from NSW), misogynistic or otherwise UNFIT to wear the uniform. That the number may be minor is irrelevant given the power that police have to kill or harm others - the bigotry of some has left me with lifelong scars, and I know others who have been similarly traumatised.
  Their arrogance, and all acts of omission or commission by others in the justice system, that treats police differently to others MUST stop, and redress to the victims - including the many people of this society who cannot rely of the police for aid - made; 
• our national neolib nitwit government are continuing their attack against democracy - specifically, by trying to stop us being able to access accurate information; 
• a call for support on NDIS matters; 
• what is, in effect, an act of appalling abuse of refugees; and
  
• "how the best bosses interrupt bias".
  

A few comments on/from the news

Owing to limited time (and energy), I will, from time to time, make a few brief comment on news and other events - or even just highlight articles I consider worth the attention.

• not all members of the community see police as a good thing, and even less so the less trained PSOs: this plan to use more PSOs risks pandering to majoritarian blindness; 
• an article on peace-focused community initiatives, as opposed to top-down policing; 
• US-focused, but the importance of terminology, and thus not calling the self-styled "militias" that, but what they are: armed extremists; and
  
• this article on "the tyranny of merit" should be compulsory reading for everyone - especially those women who think merit is all that matters in terms of getting ahead in the world.
  

Risk Management: Changes to Globalisation

Risk management is focused, by its very name, on what could go wrong. There are times, however, when things can go "right", and the risk is: not capitalising on the good that has happened. 

An example of failing to take an opportunity would be the Allied landings at Anzio, during World War (part) Two, where the caution of the Allied leader (and refusal to accept help from the Italian resistance) gave Axis forces enough time to shift their defences and surround the beachhead. There is thus a question over how many of the 12,000 dead and more than 60,000 wounded were actually necessary . . .

Not having a sovereign wealth fund (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) is another missed opportunity. 

Failing to act on warnings about the COVID-19 pandemic by adopting measures including those aimed at "flattening the curve" is a failure to take advantage of an early warning. (A recent article suggests my home state should have gone to Stage 4 lockdown with facemasks sooner, but possibly without the curfew.)

On top of that, many people have personal experience of missed opportunities. 

The problem of missing opportunities can be exacerbated when, after years of, for instance, abusive behaviour in a workplace, a new manager comes in, and opportunities are not taken out of suspicion - or, to choose a more intimate example, a good potential partner is distrusted because of past abusive relationships. 

Examples of missing opportunities (for a range of reasons, not only past abuse) abound - and an article this week has got me thinking about possibly missing opportunities internationally, as a result of some things becoming better as a result of the pandemic - specifically, globalisation. 

The article addressed the impact on globalisation of technological developments which have been highlighted by the pandemic. The main points of the article ("Deglobalisation or an Evolution of Globalisation?") are:

• "When seen through the prism of technology, globalisation seems to be evolving rather than ebbing. This raises the question of what policymakers can do to prepare themselves for this new phase of globalisation."
• the history of globalisation is that it has been driven by the search for cheaper labour, which benefits producers (by reducing costs), consumers (by reducing prices), and those nations which wind up with people employed (but at the - unacknowledged in the article - cost of those jobs which were effectively offshored - that group of people who are prominent amongst those currently support the USA's 45th [despotic] president, those people who get patronising, simplistic, dismissive and offensive comments about retraining that is inappropriate to the point of being idiotic); 
• open borders aid access to talent in other nations, but this is being resisted at the moment (including, I have to point out, for the very valid reason of trying to save people's lives from the pandemic); 
• that resistance to open borders is being "circumvented", the article states, by technology, which allows access to people wherever they are; 
• after the pandemic, laws on labour and technology matters should be updated to facilitate continued access to human resources wherever they are.
  

Moving away from digital forms of technology, whether highlighted by the pandemic or not, there are always changes afoot. Kodak failed to embrace the opportunities that consumers recognised in digital photography, went bankrupt in the USA in 2012, and now is making pharmaceuticals to capitalise on the pandemic.

(And, on the other hand, Nokia was initially a pulp mill - look how they have adapted.)

There was a story about a man in London in the late 1800s who said his company didn't need phones because they had message boys (and yes, it was all sexist at that time). 

(The rewards of capitalising on not being sexist - such as more workers, increased creativity, etc - is another example of the values of taking opportunities.)

The opportunities the pandemic has created include: 

• distant working (reduced expenditure on offices, improved mental health and productivity of workers, avoid the safety risks for workers of commuting); 
• possible rebuilding of an economy that is more people focused, and thus less rigid (business benefits include more flexibility for workers and thus improved mental health and productivity, ability to change market focus more quickly in response to changing demands, and possibly reduced office expenses); and 
• better use of advanced technology - and that does not include PCs, which have been passé for some time now: it means things like additive ("3D") printing, getting used to video conferencing and using it (and thus not sending money on work travel that isn't absolutely necessary - but telehealth is also an excellent example of this sort of principle), and improved shopping - such as click and collect, or vastly improved home delivery (and the Post Office is finally starting to capitalise on their competitive advantages in parcel delivery - well, here in Australia, at any rate).
  

If, as many people are calling for them to be, economies are rebuilt in a more  holistic,   inclusive,   people- and environment-focused   way, the economy will be different - it will, to state the obvious, be more people-, environment- and future-oriented, and that: 

• helps workers, which thus helps businesses that choose to allow it to do so - especially by getting away from distrustful factory floor attitudes towards supervision of workers (I'm glad I don't work at such a place, but I know others who are still stuck with that mediaeval style of "management") which have been out of place for around 70 years or more, and possibly always; 
• reduces short term and long term costs for businesses (renewables make better sense financially in many cases - certainly in the long term, and disinvesting from anything with an adverse environmental impact [which is more than only climate change] reduces the risk of future litigation); and 
• enables businesses to choose ethical, sustainable and socially licenced markets/activities, which enables business leaders to be better stewards of company resources, the world's resources, and more effective as long term leaders. 

But that all has to be seen, and the opportunity recognised, and taken. 

Change is coming - well, it's always coming, but more so, and bigger, as a result of the pandemic: who - businesses and nations - will be the Kodaks, who the Nokias, of this coming change? 

The losers - nations as well as businesses - will lose workers (all workers, not only the best), market share and markets, and eventually, in the case of businesses, existence or, in the case of governments, political power. 

Change is coming: Can you see it? Are you flexible, creative and courageous? If so, how will you adapt? 

Will you be a Kodak, or a Nokia?

Why we should care about . . . India's judicial independence

The moment we move away from direct (100% participatory) democracy to the more common (and, these days, probably more practicable - although we need far more participatory aspects) representative democracy, the issue of "checks and balances" becomes "a thing", to borrow some modern parlance. 

There are a range of forms of checks and balances, including: 

• elections (which can be flawed on the basis of the influence of political parties and possibly media influence/lack of or distorted information - incidentally, I like  the  Hare-Clark  concept); 
• houses of review, such as our  Senate - although those are typically based on regions, and most do not provide any (let alone adequate) representation to minority groups such as Indigenous people or specific minority ethnicities (Iraq  does), women, children, and other minority groups (Sweden has this); 
• dividing political power amongst several  competing (or independent) branches, on the basis that this will prevent abuses; 
• specific laws around human rights and human  dignity, etc; and 
• an independent judiciary.
  

The use of a tripartite division of power (executive, legislative, and judicial) evolved in England and France in the 1600s and 1700s, and has been fairly widely adopted since - including in India. 

An independent  judiciary is widely considered to be crucial in ensuring the "rule of law" as opposed to "the law of the jungle" or authoritarian , totalitarian, or dictatorial imposition of power by the few - or the one - over the many, widely done overwhelmingly at the expense of the many. It is a counter-balance to political and social power, achieved by holding the powerful to account to the same laws as anyone else. 

This includes ensuring that governments, and members of governments, obey the same laws as everyone else. 

It applies also in India. 

From the Wikipedia link above:

India follows constitutional democracy which offers a clear separation of powers. The judiciary is independent of the other two branches with the power to interpret the constitution. Parliament has the legislative powers. Executive powers are vested in the President who is advised by the Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The constitution of India vested the duty of protecting, preserving and defending the constitution with the President as common head of the executive, parliament, armed forces, etc.—not only for the union government but also the various state governments in a federal structure. All three branches have "checks and balances" over each other to maintain the balance of power and not to exceed the constitutional limits.^[31]

• President can set aside a law passed by the legislative or an advise given by the Union Council of Ministers when it is inconsistent with the constitution of India.
• Even if the president accepts a law passed duly by the legislative, it can be repealed by the Supreme Court after a fair trial if it is against the Basic structure of the constitution. Any citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court directly to repeal the unconstitutional laws made by the legislative or executive.
• President can be removed from office for unconstitutional decisions after an impeachment trial conducted by the parliament.
• President can be removed by Supreme Court of India under article 71(1) for electoral malpractice or on the grounds of losing eligibility for the position.
• Parliament can impeach judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of states for their incompetence and mala fides. A higher bench of judges can set aside the incorrect judgements of a smaller bench of judges to uphold the constitution.

Thus, concerns are being raised that the actual or perceived independence of India's judiciary may be compromised by a recent court decision absolving members of the political party holding power in India, the BJP, of responsibility for the destruction of a mosque in 1992 - which led to riots that killed thousands of people. 

Although freedom of religion is guaranteed by Article 25-28 of the Constitution of India, religion is a major divide in India, and has been the excuse for disturbing violence - including during the partition into India and Pakistan in 1947, an event which saw millions (likely around 15 million) displaced, hundreds of thousands (likely a million or more) killed, and many other appalling atrocities. 

The BJP has a policy which is widely seen or described as a form of "Hindu nationalism", and the BJP government of Prime Minister Modi is seen as having exacerbated religious violence against minorities - see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

There are other concerns about the economy and authoritarianism, as well - see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

The concern as a result of this court decision (which, as I haven't seen any details, could possibly be justifiable [although, based on what seems to be the case, I have doubts]) is that there is a pattern of behaviour diminishing democracy - actions such as favouring one section of society over another, silencing dissent, and now there is a question mark over the independence of the judiciary.

Now, I don't know how that influence diminishing independence could have been made (if, in fact, any such was made), but the fact that the concern exists on the basis of a perception is significant, particularly in the light of other concerns.

For India, the world's most populous democracy, this is disturbing, but why should we care?

Well, apart from simple human compassion and decency: 

• India has a very large population - almost 1.4 billion at the time of writing, 17.5% of the world's population, only exceeded by China; 
• India's GDP is third in the world - exceeded only by the USA and China (and the European Union), and the nation has considerable exports and imports; 
• India's location is significant - for instance, considerable maritime traffic passes by, and it borders West and Central Asia; 
• India's relationship with China has been fraught, and, on the India-Tibet border, the dispute has become "hot" (physically violent) several times - probably the only location here an increasingly  assertive and at times aggressive China is facing that; 
• China's occupation of Tibet gives it control over the water supply to much of South and South-East Asia - a water supply China's growing population is hungry for, together with the hydro-electric potential of those mighty rivers.
  

In all considerations of possible responses to China's growing power, India is crucial. 

In those deliberations, the likelihood that India will behave constructively is increased by the nation being more liberal and democratic - the current concerns suggest an increased prospect for poor decision making, whether out of an attempt to try to distract people in India by a bit of "foreign grandstanding", distraction by internal unrest, or just the flawed perceptions and thinking that ALWAYS underlies discriminatory practices. 

This is exacerbated by the history of warfare between the two nations on the Tibet-India border, China's "belt and road initiative", and China's long  standing support and developing economic relationship with predominantly Muslim (the Islamic Republic of) Pakistan - a relationship made more significant by the Modi government's reprehensible actions in Kashmir. 

The world's two most populous nations are at (minor) loggerheads, but they and their allies are loaded with powder kegs and neither can  confidently be held likely to act responsibly. 

We should care a very great deal about what is happening in India - and that caring should include that nation's people, and the people of the entire region, a caring that should be particularly foremost in the minds of all nations that glory in their former membership of the British Empire, which created a significant part of the current mess. 

Cross posting: Post No. 1,685 - historical echoes

This was originally (meant to be) posted on my main blog at: https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2020/10/post-no-1685-historical-echoes.html. 

***

I'm currently watching a history series, and today they published an episode about some of the human rights abuses committed by Germany's army (the Wehrmacht) during World War (part) Two. 

It's horrifying stuff - especially the allocation of food to prisoners: 2,200 calories to those who worked, nothing to those too ill to work or who refused to work. 

Although far less extreme, I am also disturbed by the attitude of those today who think people have to "earn" human rights by meeting responsibility (what "responsibility" do I have to meet to not be tortured or murdered?) or that there is a price to pay to earn social security. 

There is a price to pay by insisting such prices exist as a gatekeeping barrier between human decency and those in need: our soul as a nation. 

Neoliberals would do well to reflect on that. 

Right wingers

 Right wing MPs don't like right wing extremists being described as "right wing". 

Well, I don't like that those anarchists in the early 20th century who were violent, and abusive despots like Stalin, were described - or considered to be - left wing (and there were plenty of right wing despots - Pinochet, and the petty tinpot despots Reagan supported - especially in Central America). 

Unfortunately, wherever you are politically (and no matter what social group you are in), there are going to be people who misapply your principles, or do what they foolishly (people tend to be at different stages along the learning curve, and that, in my experience, can be a major problem - I've seen it destroy at least one group, and cause problems in MANY other situations) think is beneficial, or simply use what you stand for as a cover. Managing those problems is part and parcel of every group or movement. 

Trying to define them out of your group is censorship, not dealing with the problem, not being genuine about your principles. 

Quotations on the duties of citizenship

 I came across the following in "The Face of War: Writings from the Frontline, 1937-85" by Martha  Gellhorn, and consider it well worth contemplating: 

"As citizens, I think we all have an exhausting duty to know what our governments are up to, and it is cowardice or laziness to ask: what can I do about it anyway? Every squeak counts, if only in self-respect." 

 And, from "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers" by  Daniel  Ellsberg: 

"words written by James Madison, drafter of the First Amendment: A popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."

This week's news post

 For anyone who is interested, this week's news post is at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2020/10/post-no-1679-in-this-weeks-news.html.

Risk Management: Nagorno-Karabakh

PS - now (mid-December, 2020) that a ceasefire and change of territory has been agreed and is being implemented, HRW has released reports into human rights abuses by both  sides.

“Stop the Press” - Russia has mediated a ceasefire (that’s great, but it must start, and then continue - and it isn’t a peace)

The events over the last week and a bit in Nagorno-Karabakh, a rugged and predominantly Armenian region that has been more or less self-governing since around 1988 (talks over the region’s fate commenced when the fighting stopped in 1994) but is located inside the predominantly Muslim  Republic of Azerbaijan, located as little as a few kilometres from the predominantly Christian  Republic of Armenia, have been terrible - hundreds are dead, many more have been wounded, destruction of property has occurred - lives have been stopped, altered, and crippled by fear, loss, and change imposed by the will of others.

I and others can relate to the sensation of being surrounded by a hostile and sometimes violent group: it is something that women, members of minority groups (ethnicity and religion), LGBTIQ+ people, and members of various classes in society all have experienced . . . but we, here in Australia, don’t have artillery firing at us, jets dropping cluster bombs, and snipers picking off our loved ones.

We actually have past connections with that region:

• the invasion of Gallipoli in 1915 was the trigger for an increase of attacks by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians; but
• towards the end of World War One, Australian troops were involved in saving some Armenians, with a platoon or company fighting off a larger detachment of Ottomans for more than a day so the Armenians could escape; and
• “Doc” Evatt played a key role in developing the United  Nations (UN), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which were major steps towards the development of the Genocide  Convention, a crime that was named by Raphael Lemkin after he heard of the Armenian Genocide - a convention which Australia has ratified; but
• Australia continues to officially refuse to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide . . .

(Samantha  Power covers these matters well in her book “A Problem  From  Hell”.)

This is the sort of situation I often hear people say “oh, that’s very complicated”, “oh, that’s an old problem”, (implying it is intractable), all of which is basically an excuse not to care or try.

I actually consider the situation in this region not very complicated, and entirely predictable, predicated on the arrogant, uncaring, self-interest of the various Empires that have shoved their tentacles - the USSR most recently, but before them (separated by a period of independence) the Ottoman Empire, and before that (Tsarist) Russia, Persia, Arabs, and even the Roman Empire.

These clashing and competing Empires are basically putting their desire for macho braggadocio (I phrased that much more crudely for the first few version of this post, but toxic  masculinity is, in my opinion, a major part of all empire building and sovereignty-based problems - whereas healthy  expressions  of  masculinity can be part of the solution) ahead of the wellbeing of others - not to mention others’ right to self-determination.

The right to self-determination, by the way, existed before it was codified, in my opinion: all the codification did was, as with Newton’s Law of Gravitational Attraction, provide a description of something that already existed - morally, if not normatively.

What those Empires did was similar, in many ways, to what European colonial powers did with arbitrary borders in Africa (well discussed in books like David  van  Reybrouck’s “Congo”, and books like the “Very Short Introductions” to “African History”, written by John Parker and Richard  Rathbone and “African Politics”, written by Ian Taylor).

Stalin, in particular, had a well developed sense of divide-and-rule and buying loyalty which led to this region being given to Azerbaijan.

That decision led to the current situation, as when the USSR collapsed decisions were made to put the sovereignty of created nations ahead of the right to self-determination of peoples - something that led to wars and other problems in Africa.

I support both those principles - sovereignty and the right to self-determination, but when the two clash, the latter must take precedence (just as, at present [during the COVID-19 pandemic], the right to health and life is taking precedence over other rights). When that order of precedence does not occur, when sovereignty is taken to have precedence over other rights such as the right to self-determination, we have empire building, abuse of asylum seekers, and discrimination, to name just a few of the resultant problems.

It is, in my opinion, about people feeling they are lessened by allowing others to have reasonable, deserved and rightful freedom.

Going back to list of groups I gave earlier (women, members of minority groups [ethnicity and religion], LGBTIQ+ people, and members of various classes in society), this is something that they have often had to endure as well, so it should be understandable - or at least relatable.

The history of discrimination by Azerbaijanis against Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh is not helping anyone - not even those sadistic bigots who get off on their petty and arbitrary imposition of power through abuse, which is a problem that the listed minorities also experience - wherever they are.

Azerbaijan never really “had” Nagorno-Karabakh, therefore it will not be lesser if it lets that region go, much as men in patriarchies are not diminished by allowing women equity. They may think so, because they are uncomfortable at the change, but they are removing psychological scars and burdens from themselves. As an example of that, the drive for women’s rights has now made it easier for fathers to be part of their children’s lives. On an international scale, the United Kingdom “lost” the colonies that became the USA - which established a healthy (“special”) relationship with, and then saved, the UK (and the rest of the world) in the World Wars.

The UK also “lost” India, which allowed India to start recovering from the damage British occupation had caused (India’s GDP had been 20% of the world’s total before the British invasion, but was only 5% after), weakened the arrogance that was so problematic in British Imperial thinking, and freed the UK of some of the moral burden it had as a result of its actions - actions involving military rule/occupation are always expensive, and the UK could no longer afford to try to impose rule.

Azerbaijan spends a significant part of its GDP on military matters: if it stopped trying to impose “rule” on Nagorno-Karabakh, it would remove that expense, and avoid the loss of human potential that such conflict always causes, including the loss of thinking resulting from the distracting focus on dominating and/or hating a region/people. How many Lotfi A. Zadeh’s has this conflict robbed Azerbaijan of?

The same impacts and losses have also been felt by Armenia.

Terrible as that is, there is also the question: could this conflict spread?

Together with most of the nation of Georgia (a pro-Western [since 2003] “parliamentary constitutional republic” which has two border disputes with Russia that last flared into war in 2008), Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan make up what is called the South Caucasus or Transcaucasia - a region from Russia’s Greater Caucasus mountains in the north to the borders of Turkey and Iran in the south, and from the Black Sea in the west to the Caspian Sea in the east - an area of just over 180,000 square kilometres and around 17 million people (10 million in Azerbaijan, 150,000 in Nagorno-Karabakh), a broad valley between and partly in two mountain ranges with oil, manganese, and good agriculture (this region may have been where the first wines were made, many thousands of years ago).

This region has a history of being forced into one conglomerate by various powers - most recently Soviet Russia, until 1991. Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of the post-USSR organisation the Commonwealth of Independent States; Georgia withdrew from the CIS after the 2008 war with Russia.

A short overview of nations in this region is:

• Armenia is rated “partly free”, and, although it is not good, its human rights  situation tends “to be better than those in most former Soviet republics and have drawn closer to acceptable standards”, and there has been some progress.
  The nation had, in 2017, a GDP of US$28 billion (4.9% [7^th most in the world] spent on its armed forces of around 45,000), US$9,500 per capita across its approx. 3 million people, with 32% below the poverty line.
  From a governance point of view, using World Bank data, the nation has generally improved since the USSR ended, excepting political stability in the last couple of years, but still has a way to go.

• Nagorno-Karabakh is rated as “partly free”, and, well, see here, for example, regarding human rights.

• Azerbaijan is rated as “not free”, and significant  concerns exist about human rights in that nation.
  The nation had, in around 2017 a GDP of US$172 billion (4% [10^th in the world] spent on its military of 67,000 active personnel), US$17,500 per capita across its approx. 10.2 million people, with 4.9% below the poverty line. 90% of Azerbaijan’s exports are oil and gas, with the key customers being (in 2017): Italy 23.2%, Turkey 13.6%, Israel 6.1%, Russia 5.4%, Germany 5%, Czech Republic 4.6%, and Georgia 4.3%.
  From a governance point of view, Azerbaijan has improved only slowly since the USSR fell - the low respect for Rule of Law, given the current circumstances, is of particular concern.

• Georgia is rated “partly free”, and there are concerns about human rights and ineffective attempts at political reform (but the attempts were made).
  The nation had, in 2017, a GDP of US$40 billion (2% [50^th in the world] spent on its military of approximately 25,000 active personnel), US$10,700 per capita across its approx. 4 million people, with 9.2% below the poverty line (in 2010).
  From a governance point of view, Georgia has made considerable improvement since the Rose Revolution, and is in a reasonable state now, except with regard to political stability.

Moving on to other regional players:

• Turkey is rated “not free”, and there are serious concerns about human rights, particularly following the attempted coup in 2018. Turkey is actively intervening in Syria.
  The nation had, in 2017, a GDP of $2,190 billion , US$27,000 per capita across its approx. 84.6 million people, with 21.9% below the poverty line in 2015.
  From a governance point of view, this nation has been showing a decline over the last half decade or so.

• Russia is rated “not free”, and there are grave concerns about its deteriorating  human rights situation. Russia is also actively intervening in several conflicts in West Asia and northern Africa.
  The nation had, in 2017, a GDP of $4,020 billion (3.9% [14^th in the world] spent on its military of 900,000 active and 200,000 National Guard personnel), US$27,900 per capita across its approx. 146 million people, with 13.3% below the poverty line in 2015.
  From a governance point of view, this nation is of concern, despite government effectiveness having increased. Rule of law is disturbingly low for a nuclear armed nation.

So, my summation of all those numbers is:

this is a region of relatively poor (despite the resources of the region) and small (my home city has more people than Armenia and Georgia) nations, with significant military spending by Armenia and Azerbaijan. Georgia and possibly Armenia are moving towards Western style democracy and freedoms, but all three are affected by:

• historical events,
• the ongoing legacy of the USSR’s abuses,
• the present tensions of being minnows between the ambitious, unfree, abusive, interventionist and authoritarian Russian and increasingly authoritarian Turkish sharks, and
• the hassle of trying to co-exist with differing cultures in the same valley which happens to be in a reasonably significant - geopolitically - location.

On top of that, Turkey and Russia have internal problems, and could possibly get an internal patriotism boost from a foreign war - particularly if it has low casualties for them and the outcome they desire.

One of the realpolitik factors that is significant here is economic. Simplifying a bit by ignoring the 10% that isn’t oil or gas, Turkey buys 14% of Azerbaijan’s exports (oil and gas), and European nations buy 33% - they would prefer that continued, but Europe won’t accept the political flak of a war - especially one with human rights abuses. It has other sources of oil - as do possibly Israel and Georgia, and definitely Russia.

Of course, I understand Azerbaijan’s oil pipeline goes through Armenia, but attacking that would lead to a major escalation, and Armenia borders its enemy’s backer, not Russia.

Geopolitically, apart from the competition between Russia and Turkey, authoritarian Iran is also close enough to get involved, and also has a history of intervention in others nations. However, I wonder if Iran can spare the resources for another foreign entanglement, especially given the effect of the pandemic inside that nation? I doubt Iran would get involved unless an event occurred such as a massacre or large scale abuse of Azerbaijanis (e.g., inside Armenia or Nagorno-Karabakh).

I don’t know anything about the quality of military forces of these nations (which have all largely inherited Soviet weaponry), nor what is happening with regard to military movement, but on paper, Azerbaijan would seem to be strongest. It is perhaps significant - and prudent - that Armenia has gone to the European Court of Human Rights for help.

One of the reports from this week is that Turkish backed fighters in Syria have gone to Azerbaijan, and are dying “in their dozens”. They’re tough, battle-hardened fighters, but Nagorno-Karabakh has, after all, lasted for several decades.

Another source of potential foreign fighters for Azerbaijan could possibly be various violent extremist groups that have been, based on a media report I recently read (and included in one of my recent news posts), rebuilding their strengths after apparently being wiped out. Azerbaijan apparently has the second highest proportion of Shia in the world, after Iran: would that make them inclined to accept such help if it turned up?

The crucial factor there would probably be Turkey’s attitude, and I suspect they would be disapproving of such measures. Again, if a massacre of similar problem occurred, it may be difficult to stop such involvement occurring.

The onus seems to be on Armenia to make sure Nagorno-Karabakh “fights fair”, and that depends on how effective third parties will be. If a massacre occurs of Armenians, it will be hard to hold back Russia, which shares a border with Azerbaijan, and, from the war it had with Georgia in 2008, knows something of fighting in the region.

However, Russia isn’t rushing to help its possibly injudicious ally.

Unfortunately, I don’t consider the European Court of Human Rights will have a significant direct influence on Azerbaijan, Turkey or Russia.

Cutting off military aid isn’t likely to happen, despite US Democrats urging an end to US military aid, as I suspect the bulk of the aid is from backers - and Israel is supplying at least Azerbaijan with cluster bombs.

The main external pressure that is likely to lead to an outcome is sanctioning Azerbaijan’s oil sales.

That may have to be combined with someone telling Armenia not to shoot their mouth off so much (see my disparaging remarks about macho attitudes above).

Ultimately, Nagorno-Karabakh may have to accept something like being an autonomous region within Azerbaijan (third parties are probably too concerned about their own internal tensions to support a clear signal favouring the right to self-determination over sovereignty), but Azerbaijan will also have to accept the need to stop discrimination.

Overall, provided no-one does anything majorly foolish, I consider there is a good chance of ending this war without it expanding - which is still too late for those already killed or harmed.

I don’t have good hopes, however, that Nagorno-Karabakh’s situation will be resolved in the near or even medium future.

Having worked through all that, I now want to put down some brief dot points on risk management.

This is what I actually wanted to cover, when I first conceived of the article, but it’s grown a fair bit so I will just list a few dot points.

Now, there are risks on all levels - from the individual to the world - involved in this situation. I’ll ignore the military aspects in the immediate front line conflict, but that still leaves us with:

Risks for individual civilians to manage:

• before the conflict, it may have been possible accumulate food, water disinfection tablets, and the like, as survivalists do, but, in this instance, that’s hard to do when living hand-to-mouth - and, even if one could, it can be difficult when there is a long time interval between problems (which is a lesson the entire world is relearning about pandemics) as the stored food, etc has a limited life.
  Accumulating empty sand bags and shovels is more likely to be useful.
  However, as a general principle everywhere in the world, it is good to have two weeks of essential supplies available;
• a better risk management option would be to relocate (which also applies to those in the shadow of volcanoes, or at risk of landslides, floods, and - of particular relevance to Australia - bushfires), but apart from the difficulty of finding the money to do so (and a nation to call home, and a job once you have arrived there), that can be devastating because of ties to that region (part of my heritage is Irish, so I have some feeling for this);
• once the conflict arrives, risk management will be about the safest way to find clean water, food, shelter, and medical aid, which may involve things like hiding during the day and moving at night, living in basements or caves, and never relaxing - movement can only occur after checking for planes, snipers, etc. Syria has shown the world what this is like, but it has occurred elsewhere - for instance, during the siege of Vicksburg during the US Civil War;
• for individuals living in democracies, educate others of the risks and the need to manage tensions;

Risks for towns to manage:

• the major issue for towns to manage is the provision of services - i.e., manage the risk of loss of essential services. This has been a part of sieges, and probably Sarajevo is the example that most people in the West can relate to;
• otherwise, it is similar to the disaster preparation that many municipalities do all over the world - the main difference is that actions may have to be extended beyond the typical two weeks of disaster planning (after that, towns and cities switch to recovery mode, ideally, but that won’t be possible for some time to come in a conflict situation). Places of refuge, routes for evacuation, etc are all a requirement;

Risks for businesses to manage:

• the best risk management is not to go into conflict zones - and yet businesses do that, time after time. We saw it during the “rebuilding” of Iraq, for instance (one wastewater treatment plant I worked on [from Australia] was in Afghanistan, and I recommended changing it from a highly mechanised activated sludge process to a simpler lagoon process for a range of reasons [easier to operate, more stable for the wide mix of inflows, etc], but also because it is harder to blow up a hole in the ground). If you do go into a conflict zone, you need to:get advice from experts on security - including for local employees;

prepare plans for evacuation and other contingencies. One company I worked at (in Australia) had procedures for riots, several have had procedures for violent extremist attacks, and I know at least one has performed a health emergency evacuation.
Make sure the plans can be triggered by those in distress (even if, for instance, by a missed phone call), and make sure they CAN and WILL be activated from a place of safety;

if warranted, provide appropriate training (e.g., knowing from the sound whether a gun has been fired towards or away from you), which is training provided by the Rory  Peck  Trust, Syria’s White  Helmets, and several  aid and other organisations.
Make sure this includes residents of that nation;

make sure you have adequate cash and other resources for whatever may happen, including insurance of your employees (irrespective of the legal situation, morally you owe then that). Your people, not your short term profits, are your greatest asset;

DO  NOT  IGNORE  OR  UNDERESTIMATE  SIGNS  OF  UNREST.
It can be human to do so when things seem to be going well - to you, but I have always remembered a media article a few months before the Bougainville Civil War which showed a few scrappy looking rifles in the boot of a car. The journalist was dubious about whether anything would happen, but it did - to the tune of tens of thousands dead over a ten year period, and the closure of what “was once the world's largest open pit copper gold mine generating over 40% of PNG's GDP”. The journalist looked at things, and missed what matters most: people.
This is a point for all businesses in the USA to consider, especially given the open display and use of weapons by white supremacists and the one-sidedness of many of the security personnel in recent months;

• Building on that last point, for businesses that are already in a conflict or at risk zone:

relocation, with employees, is the most preferable option with regard to safety ad certainty, but also the one that is least likely to be practicable.
As an interim step, it is worth diversifying into other locations, even if that requires diversifying your main line of business - that can help with normal economic fluctuations as well;

address as many other of the points listed above as is possible - in particular, plan, and prepare (including practice) for putting that plan into action. The training that schools in the USA give for active shooter situations is an example of what could be considered for adults (outside the USA, normally only required for those going into conflict zones), although there are concerns about their use for children;

Risks for governments to manage:

• The first priority for a government is to hold together under incredible stresses and strains. This will be a time that hindsight should be left in the hind reaches of minds and mouths;
• Next ensure adequate logistical provisions for those doing any fighting for you. If you can’t, you will lose - it’s that simple, even if it will take time. Governments will have experts to advise on the military matters (possibly including a switch to guerrilla warfare), but the means of production are - or should be - a government expertise.
  Again, preparation is key - plan, consider the lessons of history, re-plan, consider the feedback from trial runs, re-plan, and repeat;
• Main point: make sure no-one - including in the forces doing the fighting - does anything stupid. I think it was Von Clausewitz who wrote about the risk of one brash or over-confident officer putting entire strategies at risk - that can happen as a result of, if you are not careful, your own propaganda, so don’t do too much on that front! This should be within the capabilities of governments, as it is similar to preventing hate crimes during times of peace.
  In the current situation, one fighter doing something egregious could give the enemy an excuse to escalate.
  On that, remember that in the current Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the least well governed player has nuclear weapons . . . ;

Risks for regions to manage:

• firstly, work to avoid an escalation - note the preceding dot point;
• next, seek to contain or manage the harm. Seek to minimise the disruption to other nations, ensure refugees are managed in accordance with international requirements (the UN can help with that);
• third, seek to minimise the current conflict. This is where things like sanctions have their role, and will rely on regional organisations - the CIS might be good one for the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, for instance; and
• finally, seek a long term, permanent solution. While the conflict or tensions exist, your entire region is at risk.

Find a solution.
This may require finding and working with a trusted or respected organisation / nation / individual(s) (such as, in Africa, “The Elders”, in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] has become involved at Armenia’s request), regional bodies (such as the African  Union or, in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, the CIS), or nations that are big enough and adequately dispassionate enough to get people talking seriously.
Russia is possibly large enough to do so, but has been historically aligned with Armenia so the issue of dispassion could be up for debate. However, in this current instance, they haven’t moved to help Armenia, so maybe they could play a peacemaking role . . .
Failing Russia, possibly Pakistan would be considered acceptable as a mediator - Europe would likely be rejected by one side or the other.
One thing is certain: if the Armenian residents of Nagorno-Karabakh are driven out, the war will continue for decades - just ask the Kurds about that.

My final comment is a reminder that all the above is still occurring in the ongoing genocide against the Rohingya in a region too insignificant geopolitically to get major commitments from the world (although some action has been taken), but a tragedy that is still as morally serious as anything else.