As for the UN being unable to do much without US approval, it's simply not relevant to this discussion. This has nothing to do with the Security Council, which is where the US can exercise its veto.
- Minorities pushed off their land so the majority can settle on it? Hello American Indians.
- Holds 160 political prisoners? Hello Guantanamo Bay. (not to mention the US imprisons 5x as many people by proportion of population, some operating as labour camps)
- A bloke arrested and charged with subversion? Hello Snowden, who barely escaped.
Vietnam doesn't have freedom of political affiliation or freedom of speech (rates very low on the press freedom index, for example), but apart from that, the US seems to be quite happy to engage in the same kinds of human rights abuses.Even right down to corruption in police: witness the state of civil forfeiture laws in the US, which isn't recent either - Jello Biafra was singing in the 80s about having his property seized and legally sold before he was tried in court. Or the police abuse of blacks.
I mean hell, one of the greatest violations of human rights in the 20th century was the US war in Vietnam. Atrocities left, right, and centre. I just think it's a bit much to be painting Vietnam as having an atrocious human rights record, all the while implying that the US is some sort of gold standard.
Is it really your view that the US human right record is on par with Vietnam, particularly if you need to qualify it by excluding "freedom of political affiliation or freedom of speech" from your comparison?
And yes, arguments of proportion cut both ways - look at the incarceration rates in the US, a huge proportion of which is for a victimless crime (possessing drugs). Vietnam also doesn't go pounding its military around the world - there are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, all due to a war started to shore up domestic support in the US, for example.
Human rights extend to all humans, not just citizens of the state in question.
Edit: I guess my fundamental point is that the implication was that the HRC would do better if the US was a member, based on members' track records. But the US's track record isn't particularly good either (particularly in regard to non-US citizens)
If you aren't part of that demographic it may not seem so bad. But the numbers are absolutely awful.
I doubt that their "regime" has ever done something comparable.
How many millions did any Vietnamese government in past or present kill in the middle east. How many terrorist organizations are currently run out of Hanoi in comparison to those run out of Washington?
Does the Vietnamese president sign kill lists and run torture camps across the globe?
To make it easier, maybe you can point to just one of the statements in that comment that hasn't historically happened.
So, back to the original point: the OP commented that the U.S. does X. You then stated that his claim was "paranoid nonsense".
If someone has a history of doing something, then it's not "paranoid nonsense" to point out that it's something they do. It's just a rational observation.
So, that's it then? His claim is paranoid nonsense because the U.S. hasn't propped up all human rights abusers.
Africa MOBUTU SESE SEKO Dictator of Zaire 1965-1997 MOHAMMED SIAD BARRE President/Dictator of Somalia 1969-1991 GEN. IBRAHIM BABANGIDA Military Dictator/President of Nigeria 1985-1993 GEN. SANI ABACHA Dictator of Nigeria 1993-1998 HASTINGS KAMUZU BANDA Dictator of Malawi 1966-1994 LAURENT-DÉSIRÉ KABILA President/Dictator of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 1997-2001 GNASSINGBE ETIENNE EYADEMA Dictator of Togo 1967-2005 FELIX HOUPHOUET-BOIGNY Dictator/President of the Ivory Coast 1960-1993 HASSAN II King of Morocco 1961-1999 TEODORO OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO President/Dictator of Equatorial Guinea 1979-present ZINE EL ABIDINE BEN ALI President-Prime Minister/Dictator of Tunisia 1987-2011 ANWAR EL-SADAT President/Dictator of Egypt 1970-1981 HOSNI MUBARAK President/Dictator of Egypt 1981-present IAN SMITH Prime Minister of Rhodesia (white minority regime) 1965-1979 PIETER WILLEM BOTHA Prime Minister of South Africa (white minority regime) 1978-1984, President 1984-1989 DANIEL ARAP MOI President/Dictator of Kenya 1978-2002 HAILE SELASSIE (RAS TAFARI) Emperor of Ethiopia 1928-1974 WILLIAM J. S. TUBMAN President/Dictator of Liberia 1944-1971 SAMUEL KANYON DOE Dictator of Liberia 1980-1990
Asia MOHAMED SUHARTO Dictator of Indonesia 1966-1998 NGO DINH DIEM President/Dictator of South Vietnam 1955-1963 GEN. NGUYEN KHANH Dictator of South Vietnam 1964-1965 NGUYEN CAO KY Dictator of South Vietnam 1965-1967 GEN. NGUYEN VAN THIEU President/Dictator of South Vietnam 1967-1975 TRAN THIEM KHIEM Prime Minister of South Vietnam 1969-75 BAO DAI Emperor of Vietnam 1926-1945, chief of state 1949-1955 LEE KUAN YEW Prime Minister/Dictator of Singapore 1959-1990; behind-the scenes ruler since then. EMOMALI RAHMONOV President/Dictator of Tajikistan 1992-present NURSULTAN NAZARBAYEV President of Kazakhstan 1990-present ISLAM A. KARIMOV President/Dictator of Uzbekistan 1990-present SAPARMURAD ATAYEVICH NIYAZOV President/Dictator of Turkmenistan 1990-2006 MARSHAL LUANG PIBUL SONGGRAM Dictator of Thailand 1948-1957 FIELD MARSHAL THANOM KITTIKACHORN Prime Minister/Dictator of Thailand 1957-58, 1963-1973 CHIANG KAI-SHEK President/Dictator (Nationalist) of China 1928-1949 President/Dictator of Taiwan 1949-1975 CHIANG CHING-KUO President/Dicator of Taiwan 1978-1988; Prime Minister 1972-1978 DENG XIAOPING De facto ruler of China from circa 1978 to the early 1990s FERDINAND MARCOS President/Dictator of the Philippines 1965-1986 SYNGMAN RHEE President/Dictator of South Korea 1948-1960 GEN. PARK CHUNG HEE President/Dictator of South Korea 1962-1979 GEN. CHUN DOO HWAN President/Dictator of South Korea 1980-1988 SIR MUDA HASSANAL BOLKIAH Sultan of Brunei 1967-present GEN. LON NOL Prime Minister/Dictator of Cambodia 1970-1975 POL POT Dictator of Cambodia 1975-1979 MAJ. GEN. SITIVENI RABUKA Dictator of Fiji 1987-1999 ASKAR AKAYEV President of Kyrgyzstan 10/27/1990-2005
Europe FRANCISCO FRANCO Dictator of Spain 1939-1975 ANTONIO SALAZAR DE OLIVEIRA Dictator of Portugal 1928-1968 COL. GEORGIOS PAPADOPOULOS Prime Minister/President/Dictator of Greece 1967-1973
Latin America ANASTASIO SOMOZA GARCIA Dictator of Nicaragua 1937-1947, 1950-1956 ANASTASIO "TACHITO" SOMOZA DEBAYLE Dictator of Nicaragua 1967-1972, 1974-1979 MANUEL ESTRADA CABRERA Dictator of Guatemala 1898-1920 GEN. JORGE UBICO CASTANEDA Dictator of Guatemala 1931-1944 COL. CARLOS ENRIQUE CASTILLO ARMAS Dictator of Guatemala 1954-1957 GEN. JOSE MIGUEL YDIGORAS FUENTES President/Dictator of Guatemala 1958-1963 COL. ENRIQUE PERALTA AZURDIA Military Junta, Guatemala 1963-1966 COL.CARLOS ARANA OSORIO Dictator of Guatemala 1970-1974 GEN. FERNANDO ROMEO LUCAS GARCIA Dictator of Guatemala 1978-1982 GEN. JOSE EFRAIN RIOS MONTT Dictator of Guatemala 1982-1983 MARCO VINICIO CEREZO ARÉVALO President/Dictator of Guatemala 1986-1991 MAXIMILIANO HERNANDEZ MARTINEZ Dictator of El Salvador 1931-1944 COL. OSMIN AGUIRRE Y SALINAS Dictator of El Salvador 1944-1945 CIVILIAN-MILITARY JUNTA, EL SALVADOR 1961-1962 COL. ARTURO ARMANDO MOLINA BARRAZA Dictator of El Salvador 1972-1977 JUNTA, EL SALVADOR 1979-1982 ALFREDO FÉLIX CRISTIANI BUKARD President/Dictator of El Salvador 1989-1994 TIBURCIO CARIAS ANDINO Dictator of Honduras 1932-1948 COL. OSWALDO LOPEZ ARELLANO Dictator of Honduras 1963-1975 ROBERTO SUAZO CORDOVA President/Dictator of Honduras 1982-1986 GEN. OMAR HERRERA-TORRIJOS Dictator of Panama 1969-1981 GEN. MANUEL ANTONIO MORENA NORIEGA Dictator of Panama 1982-1989 AUGUSTO PINOCHET UGARTE Dictator of Chile 1973-1990 GEN. JORGE RAFAEL VIDELA Dictator of Argentina 1976-1981 COL. MARCOS PEREZ JIMENEZ Dictator of Venezuela 1950-1958 GEN. ALFREDO STROESSNER Dictator of Paraguay 1954-1989 ALBERTO FUJIMORI Dictator of Peru 1990-2000 FRANCOIS "PAPA DOC" DUVALIER Dictator of Haiti 1957-1971 JEAN-CLAUDE "BABY DOC" DUVALIER Dictator of Haiti 1971-1986 MILITARY JUNTA / LT. GEN. RAOUL CEDRAS, GEN. PHILIPPE BIAMBY and LT. COL. MICHEL-JOSEPH FRANCO Haiti 1991-1994 GEN. RENE BARRIENTOS ORTUNO President/Dictator of Bolivia 1964-1969 GEN. HUGO BANZER SUAREZ Dictator of Bolivia 1971-1978 DR. GETULIO VARGAS Dictator of Brazil 1930-1945, 1951-1954 GEN. HUMBERTO DE ALENCAR CASTELLO BRANCO Dictator of Brazil 1964-1967 CARLOS PRIO SOCARRAS Dictator of Cuba 1948-1952 FULGENCIO BATISTA Dictator of Cuba 1933-44, 1952-1959 GERARDO MACHADO MORALES Dictator of Cuba 1925-1933 RAFAEL LEONIDAS TRUJILLO Dictator of the Dominican Republic 1930-1961
Middle East MOHAMMED REZA PAHLAVI Shah of Iran 1941-1979 SADDAM HUSSEIN Dictator of Iraq 1969 (1979)-2003 GEN. MOHAMMED AYUB KHAN President/Dictator of Pakistan 1958-1969 GEN. AGHA MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN President/Dictator of Pakistan 1969-1971 GEN. MOHAMMAD ZIA UL-HAQ President/Dictator of Pakistan 1977-1988 PERVEZ MUSHARRAF Dictator of Pakistan 1999-2008 ABDUL IBN HUSSEIN I King of Jordan 1952-1999 TURGUT ÖZAL Prime Minister of Turkey 1983-1989, President 1989-1993 SHEIK JABIR AL-AHMAD AL SABAH Emir of Kuwait 1977-2006 Prime Minister of Kuwait 1962-1963, 1965-1978 FAHD IBN ABDUL-AZIZ AL SAUD King and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia 1982-2005
However, when a new member considers accession, they have one on one negotiations with all existing members, sometimes in private.
The common talking point is a little misleading in that it suggests that this is unusual (it's not), or that TPP will become binding before it becomes public (it won't).
The common rebuttal is a little misleading when suggesting that every deal is negotiated this way. (Not every deal, but enough so it's probably not that big a deal.)
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_...
As you can see, there is a huge range.
There could be several years between the agreement being signed and the agreement coming into force, e.g. http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest...
"..new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won’t necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions. “Developing countries are being asked to accept very restrictive standards for intellectual property in return for transition periods that defer the harm until current governments are no longer held accountable,”.."
In which institutions can society debate where to draw the line between the benefits of negotiating "secretly" vs. the benefits of legitimizing the agreement in the eyes of the public?
Given that some details of the agreements are already public, i.e. they no longer have negotiating value, can a democratic society avail itself of the benefits of debating the already-public subset?
"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Jean-Claude Juncke
Which is quite damning.
1. I'm not certain you understand how representative government works. You vote for a person, they do what they believe is in your best interest - and whatever they do must be in your best interest, because you voted for them. Do you want your representatives to send you notice of what they do every day?
Why can't the document be negotiated in secret, if EVERY piece of it is made public before it is signed into law by your government. Other than your 'need' for information, what is the purpose of requiring every step be made public?
2. You don't seem to understand how negotiations work.
It's (relatively) easy to negotiate on behalf of 300 million people. It's impossible to negotiate when a majority of the 300 million "want to know what's going on". What you believe is in your best interest isn't what Jim in Texas believes is in his best interest. What I believe is best for all of us isn't want you believe is best for all of us. A middle ground, based on experience and research is the starting point for any economic negotiations. Experts in the field are used (although we could debate how to define expert, and how to ensure they don't have any conflicts of interest).
You know what kills any negotiation? If one party is seen to be unable to make decisions for the group they represent. What both sides want is to know the other person at the table is able to say yes and no, with relatively strong assurance the decisions will be held in the future, or changed in ways that will still be acceptable.
You know what happens if every step of a negotiation this large is public at every point? Fox News, CNBC, and the like let their screaming head commentators loose on it, thereby undermining the appearance of negotiator authority - REGARDLESS of the actual content of the document. There are people, public, famous people, who make a living by complaining just for the sake of it - and they have a lot of fans.
With this many people involved, there will be loud voices of dissent on every.single.point.
Anyway, what is the difference between you knowing that on Tuesday we agreed to weaken X, in exchange for Y instead of having public access to the document once the initial negotiation process is finished but before it is ratified by our government? You still get your information, you still get to see what's going on, and you still get input. I don't see the issue with that.
And if you are seeking education on the matter, Harvard Business School and the University of Chicago Business School have one metric ton of research and publications out on negotiation theory.
This is a bizarre view. Not only did I not vote for them, the UK conservative government got 37% of the vote. They're not bound to implement their manifesto and there is no real reason to assume the decisions made are in my best interest at all.
Why can't the document be negotiated in secret, if EVERY piece of it is made public before it is signed into law by your government. Other than your 'need' for information, what is the purpose of requiring every step be made public?
Well, this provides no way of amending it piecewise, and the only possibility is then to reject it wholesale in the legislature. Moreover, it can't then easily be changed by a subsequent change of government; it's more like a constitutional change. There may be substantial penalties to accession and withdrawal.
one party is seen to be unable to make decisions for the group they represent
It's worth questioning the extent to which the current leaders of a democratic body can sign away its future freedom of action.
This is 2015. The web has been around for nearly a quarter century, and TV news pundits even longer. Statecraft needs to evolve and adapt, not by ramping up the authoritarian penalties for violating secrecy, but by developing processes and attitudes that can thrive on transparency.
2. if you would care about protecting human rights then you wouldn't care who is in this council. you would only care if their claim has merit or not.
2. When the EFF is parroting the claims of "UN experts", the credibility of said experts is relevant.
In other words, if you say: "listen to what they say, because they are experts", questioning their expert status is entirely justified. It's different if you were to say: "listen to what they say, because it makes sense".
In this case, I think what they say is correct, but if it's true that Israel is the only item on their agenda, their credibility as experts is still suspect.
And I do agree that Israel has a terrible human rights record, but they are indeed hardly the worst offender. (Was Qatar member of this? They have enslave migrant workers, working them to death for the 2022 world championship!)
Therefore personally I'm glad that Israel is the subject of UN meetings, because they should be.
See also: cameraoncampus.org, hasbarafellowships.org
Usually the democratic regimes make such claims visit all sorts of human rights abuses on citizens of other countries in the name of human rights and freedom. So there's that.