Whoa that's a bit of a US Centric broad brush there. "Most Western Countries" - there's more to the West than the US, UK and less than half a dozenish who have or are doing that. I'm Irish and the vast majority of the EU and other Western Countries (however that is defined) aren't in the business of disappearing people.
> I'm Irish and the vast majority of the EU and other Western Countries (however that is defined) aren't in the business of disappearing people.
True, but that's comparable only if these countries had the same responsibilities (it's like comparing people, say a soldier vs a librarian). Ireland for instance has no Air Force, and has to call on the RAF to provide air defence (as it happened when Russian Tu-95s intruded). Likewise, the rest of Europe relies entirely on NATO's firepower against Russian belligerence.
You can certainly shape a better society internally and have equitable social justice if you're free from the distraction of having to defend against external aggression.
NATO is seen as a deterrent to Russian expansion into the old Soviet territories as some of the states that are now democracies have joined NATO.
In the absence of a European defence infrastructure like NATO that's pretty much all they have.
Russian belligerence being invading the Baltic states. Crimea and eastern Ukraine were less clear cut than supposed for historical reasons but many in the East live in fear of the same happening to them.
But how is NATO not a military force? It’s kind of equivalent to the US military (except it includes them)... EU is similar to United States. Both are unions of independent states
None of what you say aligns with disappearing people. NATO can easily do its role without that. In fact you can argue that NATO states like US/UK/Turkey which have disappeared people are very unlikely to do it against peer adversaries like Russia, China etc because of the risk of blow back. It's far more common to it to groups deemed as terrorist, Latin American countries etc.
Similarly countries like Sweden and Japan are well armed and not in the business of disappearing people.
That's a very broad interpretation of disappearance and I don't agree with it. NATO isn't in the business of disappearing people either - Assange and Snowden have not disappeared. But Gedhun Choekyi Nyima has disappeared. Kidnapped when he was 6 years old by agents of the CCP and nobody knows where he is now, although China officially says he's doing well.
By painting with such broad strokes, we are comparing entirely different types of actions.
The OP’s claim was that governments have given themselves the right to disappear people. That’s a legal change which couldn’t be done without the standard public process. Also, in general, when people are arbitrarily detained or disappeared, the outside world does hear about it, even in highly authoritarian regimes (see eg the Amnesty website for plenty of examples).
