Should the EU topple foreign leaders?

[politicus]

A few years ago I would have laughed this off, but the refugee crisis has made this more of a dilemma. Africa has some terrible tyrants and Europe can not really allow countries to keep collapsing, so despite all the bagage of European imperialism this may become necessary. Even if it would alienate our relations to the AU and be a bloody mess (literally).

This strategy is of course only feasible if there is an alternative to the regime and would require beefing up our military and establishing a command structure.

Ideally doing it via an African partner (neighboring country or rebel group) would be the way to go.

Eritrea would seem to be the obvious test case (as tricky as it is). Sudan is another candidate.

[politicus]

No. The European track record for effective regime change within the past 100 years, or even the past 20, is astonishingly horrible.

Not really relevant in this new context.

(if you think it is please elaborate)

[politicus]

Bringing back colonialism would be the best way to solve the refugee issue while maintaining Europe's racial purity, yes.

Snarky, but who else should remove the worst tyrants? AU is still to a large degree a dictators club where regime change is a taboo. China is the dictators sponsor and the US has no interest in this.

Surely millions of Eritreans on the run - or in exile in Europe - is not a desirable outcome?

Your so called "racial purity" just means a Europe populated mainly by Europeans. What is wrong with that?

[politicus]

Surely the effects of toppling nasties -  Jammeh, Sisi, al-Bashir, Afwerki, Bouteflika etc. - would be a short-term increase in migration? Like the whole reason the current crisis is foregrounded at the moment is because the instability in Libya etc. forced the whole affair northwards.

Depends how quickly you can do it and whether stability can be established afterwards. It would not be possible in a country the size of Egypt, but might be worth considering in some cases. 10 countries produce 77% of the worlds refugees. If you can stop 1-2 that is already a big gain.

[politicus]

Reposting my table of top refugee producing countries here. A number of them are irrelevant in this context, either because they do not affect Europe, are too large/strong, or because toppling the regime would not increase the likelyhood of peace and stability (some are failed states like Somalia).

On December 31, 2014 the following 13 countries had produced the most refugees, with the Top 3 accounting for 53% and Top 10 for 77%.

Syria 3,9 mio.
Afghanistan 2,6 mio. (2,45 in Pakistan and Iran)
Somalia 1,1 mio.
Sudan 649.000
South Sudan 616.000 (up more than 500.000)
DRC 517.000
Burma 479.000
CAR 412.000 (up 260.000)
Iraq 370.000
Eritrea 363.000 (but has almost doubled since)
Colombia 360.000
Pakistan 284.000 (mainly to Afghanistan, only place to go)
Ukraine 271.000 (mainly Russia)

The ones in bold are the ones that affects Europe substantially.

[politicus]

Are you talking some kind of shady CIA style affairs (covertly funding opposition to Al-Bashir et al) or a Libya-style intervention or even an Iraqi-style invasion?

Because, even I, an impractical EUtopian; doubt the EU has it together to pull that off logistically (let alone legally, morally and without causing some horrendous consequences).

Could be all of them, whatever works. But preferably as low key as possible.

Logistics would need to be developed. With "EU" I do not necessarily mean the union itself, but the member countries - or a group of them.

[politicus]

1) You did not elaborate on your previous comment like I asked you to. It was an odd sweeping generalization going back to 1915 and including a wide range of countries. But lets stick to the last, less weird part: What record of regime change in the last 20 years? And what countries doing said regime change? Is it France in Africa, or what are you referring to?

2) The US has no real interest in regime change in Africa, which (mostly) rules out NATO. I have no problem with NATO command structures being used if possible.

3) I am using "EU" as a description of the member countries, whether the organization itself should play a part is not central to me.

But the major reason why I mistrust this idea is because European foreign policy already -- and as always -- betrays a deep confusion about what their objectives should be. Nothing you've posted so far gives me any indication that it will be any different when done by the EU than what was done by the European countries individually.

4) Please explain what you mean by the bolded part and provide some context/examples. There has historically been no such thing as a "European" foreign policy, so how can you say this non-existing thing has always been confusing?

[politicus]

There are cases like Libya where a comprehensive plan and deal after 2011 would have helped. Rather than spending billions in 2015 on fences, boats and migrant stuff we should have helped Libya in 2011.

However, I can't see any reason for the EU to say invade the Congo or Somalia

Those are failed states, not dictatorships. Different problem: lack of leadership (and government structures as such), not tyrannical leadership.